FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Payback is Hell

I recall listening to now Solicitor General Theodore Olson making his pro-Bush argument before the Supreme Court in December 2000. He was not doing particularly well and his side-kick, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, stepped in and proposed a promising argument.

Might it not be a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to have different ways of recounting votes in differing jurisdictions? Brilliant idea, Olson must have thought, as he pedaled furiously to pretend as if he had thought up the argument himself. He need not have, as Rehnquist carried on for him, even suggesting case precedents.

That equal protection argument threw the experts–especially since the equal protection clause–which forbids states from interfering with federal rights–would not seem to apply to elections. For you see, there is no constitutional or federal right to vote! If you did not know that before Bush v. Gore, I hope you learned then that the right to vote for state office is governed by state law. Further, your right to elect electors to vote in the electoral college, which elects the president of the United States, is likewise governed by state law (though the manner of the meeting of the electors and casting the vote for President and Vice President is governed by the Constitution). Said the court,

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, sec1.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in ruling on a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations, applied the full force of the equal protection argument to the upcoming effort of some Californians to recall Gov. Gray Davis. Several counties (the poorest and those with large minority populations) don’t have the new fancy voting machines. They have, instead, punch cards, complete with hanging chads, those diabolical voting remnants that gummed up the Florida count.

The 9th Circuit said that those votes would be more likely than those votes rendered by means of the new machines to be tabulated incorrectly or not counted at all. Under Bush v. Gore, the court said, such a voting scheme is antithetical to the 14th Amendment.

No sooner had the opinion been announced than Republicans in California and across the country accused the 9th Circuit of perpetrating a left-wing conspiracy against the would-be new California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger (or, to be fair, I guess, against all Republicans). Someone else accused former President Bill Clinton of influencing the judicial opinion. That’s because Clinton was in California rallying support for Davis the day before the ruling was announced. Ah, a perfect correlation.

It is likely that the full panel of the 9th Circuit will rehear the case. There is no telling what it will do. If it votes along political lines, it will toss the three-judge court ruling. In any event, this case will make its way to the Supreme Court.

There, the justices can leave it alone or delve in. Either way, they are hung by their own petard, quite literally. I say this with enormous glee. For the decision, according to election law and constitutional law experts, was totally without legal precedent and defied all logic.

Will they follow their own rationale of Bush v. Gore? That is, “When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.”

Or will they hide behind the excuse they created for themselves? They demurred, “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

If they do take the case and rule for the Republicans, they will appear to be the political animals that they are.

And if the high court rules for the plaintiffs and, in an act of legal and logical consistency, stops the recall? A novel thought, but not an event I expect to be writing about.

ELAINE CASSEL practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teachers law and psychology, and follows the Bush regime’s dismantling of the Constitution at Civil Liberties Watch. This article originally appeared on FindLaw’s Writ. She can be reached at: ecassel1@cox.net

 

More articles by:
April 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
In Middle East Wars It Pays to be Skeptical
Thomas Knapp
Just When You Thought “Russiagate” Couldn’t Get Any Sillier …
Gregory Barrett
The Moral Mask
Robert Hunziker
Chemical Madness!
David Swanson
Senator Tim Kaine’s Brief Run-In With the Law
Dave Lindorff
Starbucks Has a Racism Problem
Uri Avnery
The Great Day
Nyla Ali Khan
Girls Reduced to Being Repositories of Communal and Religious Identities in Kashmir
Ted Rall
Stop Letting Trump Distract You From Your Wants and Needs
Steve Klinger
The Cautionary Tale of Donald J. Trump
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Conflict Over the Future of the Planet
Cesar Chelala
Gideon Levy: A Voice of Sanity from Israel
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail