Tag Archives: voting

One More “Be Like Europe” Plea

Posted on by
Reply

Expat (Paris) James Lieber and Temple University law teacher Peter Spiro want American expats to have their own quasi-State, to have territorial delegates in Congress á la DC, Puerto Rico, et al., and be directly represented in our Congress, albeit those delegates wouldn’t have any votes.

No. Expats already have direct representation, should they choose to exercise it by, you know, voting. They’re represented by their representatives and senators in their home district and State. Nor are expats’ votes any more diluted than are the votes of their fellow citizens still resident here at home.

In the end, too, the expats are that of their own volition; no one is making them live abroad.

Lieber’s and Spiro’s argument that Italy, France, and Portugal do things differently, and therefor so should we, is just cynically disingenuous. We are not Italy, France, or Portugal, nor are we any other European nation or nation elsewhere in the world; we’re unique, and that’s on purpose.

It’s only necessary to peruse our Constitution and compare it with the constitutions of those other nations, along with the histories behind them, to see both the differences and the reasons for them.

A Couple of Questions

Posted on by
Reply

In an article centered on ballot paper shortages in the 2022 mid-term elections in Harris County, Texas (County Seat: Houston), and De Kalb County, Georgia (County Seat; Decatur), accepting $2 million of Zuckerbucks in the 2020 Presidential election, there was this bit from KHOU 11 regarding the Harris County shortage:

“After reviewing help desk logs and calling presiding and alternate election judges, the county estimated 46 to 68 voting centers ran out of their initial allotment of paper[.]” However, comparing ballot paper packets distributed to the total number of votes cast, KHOU 11 “discovered 121 voting centers did not initially receive enough ballot paper to cover voter turnout[.]”

And Governor Gregg Abbott’s (R) tweeted reaction:

Harris Co. election ballot paper shortage far bigger than initially estimated. It’s so big it may have altered the outcome of elections. It may necessitate new elections. It WILL necessitate new LAWS that prevent Harris Co. from ever doing this again.

Invalidating the just completed elections and holding replacement ones may be beyond the Governor’s authority, but the thrust of his beef is valid. And beside my point here. The problem—and questions—flow from this:

[W]hile [Harris c]ounty Elections Administration Office told KHOU 11 that historical data was used for determining ballot supply needs for voting locations, the news outlet found that 52 voting centers received less ballot paper in 2022 than the number of ballots cast in 2018.
Election Administrator Clifford Tatum had told county commissioners that supplemental paper supplies were sent by his office throughout Election Day. When KHOU 11 asked Tatum where the supplies were sent, he didn’t provide any details.

The larger problem and my questions are these:

Where did they get the supplies?

If historical records actually were used, why weren’t those supplies sent at the outset instead of being withheld?

Jim Crow 2.0, Deprecated

Posted on by
Reply

The Just the News lede tells the tale after President Joe Biden’s (D) widely spread conspiracy theory.

A full 0% of black voters in Georgia report having a “poor” experience voting in the 2022 midterms, a notable showing after several years of Democratic politicians arguing that the state is working to suppress black votes.

The University of Georgia’s School of Public & International Affairs ran a poll:

Among black voters, more than 72% said “excellent,” 23% said “good,” just under 9% said “fair,” and 0% said “poor.”

Will Biden or anyone in his syndicate apologize for his smear?

Nah. Suggesting that would be carrying conspiracy theories to ridiculous extremes.

In Which the Vermont Supreme Court is Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Vermont’s State government enacted a law allowing non-citizens to vote in certain local elections. In particular, the law allows Montpelier and Winooski to change their charters so that non-citizens can vote in those municipalities’ elections. Suits ensued, and the matter wound up before Vermont’s Supreme Court.

That court then proceeded to rule in favor of the law, arguing in part

[W]e conclude that the statute allowing noncitizens to vote in local Montpelier elections does not violate Chapter II, § 42 because that constitutional provision does not apply to local elections.

The court, right after that claim, actually quoted that chapter and verse:

Chapter II, § 42 of the Vermont Constitution provides:
Every person of the full age of eighteen years who is a citizen of the United States, having resided in this State for the period established by the General Assembly and who is of a quiet and peaceable behavior, and will take the following oath or affirmation, shall be entitled to all the privileges of a voter of this state:
You solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the State of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.

The court then went through a convoluted argument to claim that the text of this Chapter and Section does not say what it says.

It’s really cut and dried, and hung in the cold cellar. Only persons who are citizens and have met a couple of additional—not substitute—criteria are permitted, via the plain, obvious, and rational meaning of the State’s constitution, to vote in any election, at any level of jurisdiction, in the State.

The State’s Supreme Court…messed up.

The Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling can be read here.

Courts and State-Controlled Federal Elections

Posted on by
Reply

In Moore v Harper, the Supreme Court is being called on to decide whether State courts can rearrange State elections laws—in particular, write their own Congressional district maps—as these pertain to how a State runs Federal-level elections.

It shouldn’t even be a question. Our Constitution is quite clear on the matter of who is responsible for setting the rules for Federal elections. Here’s Article I, Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof….

And only the Federal Congress can adjust those Times, Places and Manner. Not State courts, not even Federal courts.

Our Constitution and every State constitution also is clear on the place and role of the court system in our Federal and State governments. The Judiciary branches are coequal with the Legislature and Executive Branches—neither subordinate nor superior to either. Especially, the Judiciary branches are separate from the other two branches; they are not additional legislative facilities.

State courts, including State Supreme Courts, the facility at proximate case in Moore, have no role in setting or adjusting State Legislature-written Federal-level election rules for their States.

One argument that is being pushed on the Supreme Court for allowing State courts to overrule State Legislatures is “the Founders couldn’t possibly have meant no court oversight of State election laws.” This is obviously inaccurate. In the first place, what the Founders meant in our Constitution is what they actually wrote down and passed out of Convention to submit to the people to ratify.

In the second place, what We the People meant when we ratified that Constitution is that written-down, passed out of Convention, Constitution, with a single modification by us. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate, which involved a number of folks in We the People, resulted in a commitment to pass Amendments comprising what came to be called the Bill of Rights—the first 10 Amendments—and We the People ratified those Amendments promptly out of the First Congress. None of those Amendments address in any way how an individual State conducts its Federal-level elections.

No court oversight State election laws is precisely what the Founders intended, and it’s exactly the intention of We the People.

Full stop.