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:
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail