Lawyers and Others in the Know: Qs About Today's Electoral Challenge

[Bill Bored]

I'm sure some of these will be asked an answered in other threads; I'll be up all night reading them. But I have a few questions which I hope can be answered by people who know for sure, and perhaps others can add questions to this thread if they don't find their answers elsewhere:

1. Dick Durbin said today that in Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS ruled that there is no right of the people to vote for the Electors for President. I thought that the Constitution says Electors are popularly elected in each state, but if not, the state laws say so, don't they? I'm not asking about the argument that says "Not being discriminated against isn't the same as actually having the _right_ to vote." or the fact that we don't elect the President by popular vote. What I'm asking is: Are the Electors elected by popular vote in all 50 states, or aren't they and does the Constitution mandate this or not? (I know ME and NE do it a little differently than the rest of the country, and CO tried to, but this is also beside the point.) This really cuts to the heart of the matter as far as POTUS elections are concerned, so will someone please clarify it? If the right does not exist, there can be no fraud, except in elections for those offices determined by popular vote. In other words, I'm asking if the notion of the Presidential Election itself is really the fraud?

2. One of the Repukes, I forget who, said that OHIO Dems withheld voting machines, or miscalculated the requirements in some Dem precincts and this was NOT Blackwell's decision. What truth is there to this allegation? Who really decided? Are there OHIO Dems in name only, like Teresa LePore of FL, running elections in OH, or WHAT???

Thanks in advance for any informed responses.

[theboss]

1. Quick answers

1. There is no FEDERAL right to vote for electors. The states are left to determine the process. The process can't violate the Constitution however. Basically what this means is the states determine eligibility of voters and the method of choosing them.

2. There is probably a smidgen of truth in that allegation, but not much. Most of the problems took place in Dem-controlled counties, but funding and such comes from the state.

[Bill Bored]

2. I don't think it's just funding. It's the physical machines on the ground.

There were fewer machines than past years and the primaries, right?
I don't think this is a funding issue. I want to know if there were members of MY party, running these elections so badly. They didn't seem to be too happy about doing the recount properly, did they? (Note, I am NOT a FREEPER!)

[mordarlar]

5. If i am not mistaken there is a member of Blackwells group...

that claimed he misspent money allocated for the election. I am dead tired, but will try to find it and post on it tomorrow.

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. None of the Democratic speakers

emphasised that some 64 or so machines were kept in the warehouse. Yet, the neocon officials apparently claimed that they were told there were no more machines available. That has to be a matter of malice, granted all the other neocon partisan indicators.

How could anyone innocently "lose" so many machines at precisely the juncture where those responsible for their storage and distribution could reasonably be expected to be "on top things", aware of their precise inventory and whereabouts at all times? Perhaps, I should add, "except in America".

Which is another point that should have been raised, perhaps by the Democratic Congressman: if one hundredth - quite possibly, one thousandth or more - of the mysteriously partisan "malfunctions" occurred in an election in Europe, there would have been a major scandal. Nor would the election have been settled until all the votes had been counted by hand and recounted by hand to everyone's satisfaction.

Nor did anyone mention what a travesty the machine (purported) recounts were.

[rodeodance]

40. but some mentioned the shortage in poor districts as opposed to rich

districts-I think it was the Rep. Dem. from California who did the inital investigation with Conyers.

........ None of the Democratic speakers



emphasised that some 64 or so machines were kept in the warehouse.....

[EFerrari]

47. Bob at Free Press found machines in a warehouse and

reported it.

They did the same thing at precincts where students vote. Clear suppression.

[Bill Bored]

50. Boxer mentioned the warehouse. n/t

[KerryDownUnder]

54. Yes, Boxer mentioned the unused machines...

but she talked about 64 machines after saying that Ohio was nearly 3,000 machines short according to one report. Both valid points, to be sure, but the way she mixed the two together within seconds of each other made the unused machines seem trivial IMO.

[Bill Bored]

3. Circular reasoning?

The Constitution says there's no right but the states can't violate the Constitution? What is it they're not supposed to violate then?

[theboss]

4. The equal protection clause

This is why I got a B on my Con Law final.

The states can determine who is an eligible voter, where the voters can vote, and how they can vote...as long as there are no equal protection violations. This is why prisoners can vote in some states while ex-felons can't vote in others. (To add: This is also why the recount laws are different).

You can't violate the rights of a "protected class." In other words, you can't say that blacks can't vote while whites can. But you can say that felons can't vote and non-felons can.

[Bill Bored]

7. OK boss...

Article II
Section 1

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, yata, yata, yata.

So which states do not elect their Presidential electors by the popular vote? I suspect the answer is none, although in ME and NE, it's not winner-take-all, while in the other states it is, and that's fine.

So isn't the argument about not having a "right" to vote for Electors for President a little irrelevant, unless the states change their laws to not elect their Electors by popular vote? I think this issue, while significant, may be a bit of a diversion.

[theboss]

8. Not, it is not irrelevant at all

Because once a state action is taken, it has to follow the Constitution. In other words, once the state's choose to allow popular election of the electors, they can't break the rules.

The problem is not with the method of selection. The problem is that States like Ohio turn over running the election to elected officials who then set guidelines that can vary from district to district.

It's unfair that a segment of the population in Vermont can vote while a similarly situated segment in Mississippi cannot (felons, for example - though I don't know if felons are forbidden from voting in MS). It's also unfair that I in Fairfax County, Virginia vote on a nice shiny machine in an uncrowded area while citizens in the District of Columbia vote on a butterfly ballot. Finally, it's unfair that my recount system is different from yours.

By establishing a federal right to vote (as Jackson wants), you eliminate all these problems. People in Ohio will under the same guidelines as people in Florida and be counted the same way. You won't have different recount rules for each district either.

And the practical affect of this will be that our systems for electing Senators, Reps, Mayors, etc will be the same, because it will be impractical to have two systems in each state.

(Edited point: What Jackson is really trying to accomplish is create a federal standard for electing the president. The federal government currently can't step in and say, "Everyone must use this type of punch-card ballot, which creates inherent inequities from state to stae and district to district").

[AirAmFan]

14. The Federal government CAN induce states to follow uniform procedures,

very easily, by putting "Federal strings" on substantial intergovernmental grants to the states. Sen Chris Dodd of Connecticut was advised to insist on mandatory national election standards that would have prevented Blackwell from some of his manipulations, and that would not have allowed states to spend millions of Federal tax dollars on black-box voting machines with no voter-verifiable paper trail. But nooooo... Dodd was too weak and helped the Republicans shave millions of Democratic votes in all future elections, unless something is done in future legislation.

I think it was personal shame today over his role in the HAVA disaster that prompted Dodd to become the first white male Senator to announce support for Tubbs-Jones and Boxer.

[FreepFryer]

20. Pre-existing civil liberties.

(noticed it was above. Equal Protection.)

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. All county election boards are bi-partisan

Two Democrats and two Republicans.

[sunnystarr]

43. That may be in name only ....

Theresa (Madame Butterfly) LaPore is a Repuke in Dem clothing. I just read the other day that many Dems in Ohio urban areas are switching parties and registering Dem, including city officials, in order to get much needed funding from the state. The Republican cities get funds and the Dem cities don't.

In local politics in small towns all over the country people switch parties in order to be considered for jobs. This can be Dem or GOP.

The Dems under the SOS in Ohio (and I'm sure elsewhere) serve at the behest of the SOS and are selected by the SOS. So are they really Dems?

[TruthBeTold22]

44. Stupid Response

Are you from Ohio? Your showing your lack of knowledge if you are.

There are no Dems appointed by the SOS in Ohio. In fact there are NO Repugs appointed by the SOS either. They are appointed by the parties in the counties. I do think the SOS gives them a certificate or something confirming their appointment, however, it's all ceremonial.

In fact, the Director of the Board of Elections in Sanduaky County (I think that's one that Arnebeck uses as proof of fraud) is also the Chairman of the Sandusky County Democratic party....I bet she really wanted to commit that fraud.

[TruthBeTold22]

42. Wrong again

I'm from Ohio and in a past life worked for a Board of County Commissioners. Boards of Elections are county organizations and their budgets are set and approved by County Commissioners. Any state money would be special appropriations from the State like the Fed money for HAVA implementation. But I would think that would still go through the County Budget Process.

[claudiajean]

6. Here's your answers (and I got an A on my Con Law final):

1. SCOTUS didn't need to rule that there is no right of the people to vote for Electors for President. They simply restated that clear legal fact in the majority opinion. The Constitution is very specific that:

excerpt from Article II, Sec. 1

"Each state shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may Direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to in Congress..."

This means the state legislatures may choose ANY means to select their Electors. They can have a public vote, they could have an American Idol-style talent show, they can draw straws. Any method is OK. They are only confined by their own state Constitutions.

Early in our history, the legislatures of many states directly selected the Electors. Now each state has a methodology that involves a public vote in some way, but those methods vary. And all of those methods are granted through legislation, and can be taken away at any time that is constitutional under each state constitution.

So, the answer is, no, the people have no broad Federal constitutional right to vote for Presidential Electors at all.

2. Yes, some of the Boards of Elections and Election Supervisors who oversaw complete messes on election day were Democrats. The problems were not confined to Republican counties.

If true vote fraud was involved in Ohio, it was as likely that political operatives identified and took advantage of poor planning and incompetence in both Democratic and Republican election officials.

Ohio, like most states, has a decentralized elections system. The actual control over the conduct of the elections are in the hands of the local officials, not the Secretary of State. Blackwell may be an idiot, but our side has been placing too much of the responsibility for the problems on his office. His scope of authority is not that broad.

(Some small size states like Maryland and Rhode Island, and sparsely populated states, like Alaska and Wyoming, have elections conducted centrally from the state level. But there are few states that do this. Generally, state officials make administrative rules, but have no other direct authority over the election process.)

edited because I can think but evidently not spell....

[theboss]

9. I bet I had more fun in law school though

It's probably pretty obvious that this is not my area of expertise. (But ask me a question on ERISA and I will knock your socks off).

But do you agree with me that Jackson's desire through an amendment is to create uniformity in the system (as well as easier federal oversite).

[claudiajean]

10. But you haven't heard what my grades were in my other courses...

...let's just say that Civ Pro was not my finest hour. The general assessment of the class was that our prof was in the leading years of dementia, which complicated our understanding of collateral estoppel (and everything else for that matter). *Ahem*.

And, I think that just about any law student in America or Great Britain had more fun in law school than me. I went to a night program while working full time as the ranking election official in one of the largest jurisdictions in the country. So I worked a 10-hour, extremely demanding day each day, and then went to four hours of classes at night, and then went home to read. It's frankly amazing that I was alive past 1L.

And that experience leads me to my personal opinion of what Jackson is trying to do: I agree that your legal assessment is absolutely correct, that an amendment to the US Constitution would provide for a right to vote where none currently exists, however, I am not an advocate of greater Federal oversight nor specifically a uniform system to achieve the goal of voter protection and election reform.

More Federal involvement brought us HAVA, which disenfranchised as many voters as it aided.

Requiring a uniform system means that Loving County, Texas (Registered voters: 74) would have to use exactly the same system as Los Angeles County, California (registered voters: 4 million plus).
Exactly the same system requires the same software and hardware which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in initial outlay. How would Loving County and her 74 voters pay for that?

I am in favor of greater federal certification of equipment, of standardization of election laws (such as provisional ballots, audits and recount procedures), and especially development of publicly owned, open-source, scalable election equipment with a standard voter interface (so that even if the counting methods were different in Loving Co, TX, and LA, the ballot layout and voting experience would be the same).

But I fear that Jackson's proposal goes to far down the path of taking local control away from elections, which I believe is imperative.

[theboss]

11. I was a day student

We pitied you night students.

Thanks for confirming my thoughts. Like I said, I basically talk about election law on here combining what I know from a few different areas. I've read Bush v. Gore 100 times now with a yellow highlighter and still haven't figured it out. But this area of the right to vote seems pretty cut and dry.

And I agree with you that a federal amendment may not be the best solution. Primarily, an amendment is always the most difficult reform to get passed. It could be 2013 before anything becomes official.

Personally, I think that there simply needs to be more uniformity in the proceess and as well as non-partisan oversite at a federal level. I don't have the innate fears of e-voting as a lot of people here. But I think combining e-voting with partisan local oversite (be it Democrat or Republican) is a recipe for disaster. I'm not smart enough to know how to do accomplish that, however.

[Bill Bored]

16. OK I get it

But at the moment, all the states elect Electors by popular vote, so the issue is how they implement this. The problem in FL wasn't with the Felons list per se. The problem was that the list was bogus! There was no due diligence in the selection of the names of the felons. And they tried it again in 2004.

And as both of you have said, the voting procedures can be standardized to a large extent without amending the Constitution. Federal statue, grass roots coordination of advocacy in each state, referendums, lawsuits to make the states prove the votes are being counted correctly as cast, etc. As lawyers, I'm sure you'll have problems with the last one but I'm not a lawyer so I don't see the same problems as you, given the fact that the vote is currently NOT verifiable and without the source code and/or the appropriate mandatory random recounts (VVPBs + audit requirements), no one can prove that the vote is correct. If I'm wrong, please tell me how. I accept the burden of proof, and it can be provided by examining the process by which these machines are bought, tested and certified. This is not a matter strictly for the lawyers; it's a matter for IT professionals, who would be your expert witnesses in these suits.

Hope you're still there reading this so you can comment. Thanks.

[Carolab]

37. Have you written to Jackson expressing these concerns?

It appears that you are knowledgeable and have a strong opinion and can lay out a convincing argument pro or con.

What do you mean by "scalable" election equipment?

And, how do you feel about hand-counted paper ballots, or a mail-in system such as Oregon's?

[catnhatnh]

35. That's why...

...God created paralegals...(and english majors...)

[sunnystarr]

48. I remember in 2000 that the Florida state legislature stating that

if Gore won in the recount they could still send the Bush electors. That was the first time I realized that our right to vote was up to the whim of state legislators.

We need a Constitutional amendment that gives us all the right to vote, have uniform rules throughout the country that protect the votes, the counting, and the recounting, the same equipment used nationally WITH a paper trail, uniform training guidelines for all poll workers, and I'm sure I missed some other important ones.

I've read a few comments that are leary of federalizing the election process believing that it would lead to even more fraud. Personally I find that shenanigans are more frequent on local and state levels. I would at least trust that Dems in Congress are really Dems and trust that there will be oversight.

[Jersey Devil]

12. States could roll dice if they wanted to determine electoral votes

There is no constitutional right to vote for electors as Durbin said. He was correct.

Voting for electors is, as you suggested, a matter of state law and that is why in 2000 it was so surprising that the federal courts got involved. In the past they hesitated and usually said that elections were state matters to be interpreted by state courts.

[The Judged]

15. Constitution and federal law on Americans rights to vote for ... off topic

1). US Senators & US Representatives?
2). State officials?

I posted a thread in order to draw some attention to the subject. However, I have not gained an education in law and my thread mixed American Constitutional rights to vote into one big clump: Constitutional rights to vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=256544&mesg_id=256544

While I understand the truth about the American public not having a Constitutional right to vote for president as a result of the Constitution's provision for the Electoral College and the right of states to determine their methods for appointing their electors, I remain in a state of confusion on an Americans Constitutional right to vote for their US Senators & Representatives and for their state public officials.

This may seem like an easier question, but the answer doesn't strike me as being as simple to understand.

The answer, it seems to me, is that there is no way for the federal government to ensure equal protection under the law and due process to state residents in the absence of either Constitutional Amendments or federal regulations that dictate specific uniformity for states election laws, procedures, and rules, whether it be for federal or state elections.

The federal government automatically defers all such legal challenges and questions on federal elections back to states for final determinations, even in the case of GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al., which was an acknowledgment of my claim that the federal government is not prepared to, and does not indicate any plans to make amends to become able to, rectify the problem of equal protection under the law and due process for state residents.

However, I want to know what rights the US Constitution affords Americans in terms of "rights to vote" for their US Senators & Representatives and for their state public officials.

Thank you in advance for any help you may be willing and able to provide me on this subject.

[theboss]

17. These are state elections

The one thing people need to realize is that when discussing "equal protection," state action is the key.

A state may or may not be compelled to take an action. For example, a state is not forced by the Constitution to provide public education or public transportation or public housing or elder care. However, once a state commences an action such as providing public education, it has to abide by the federal Constitution, specifically the equal protection clause. In the 50s, during desegregation, a few states contemplated just ending public education instead of abiding by the USSC, which would have been permissable, if not insane.

Article I of the Constitution address the election of representatives. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States. . ." Therefore, these have to be elected directly by the people, under the laws of the several state, in accordance to the Constitution.

The 18th Amendment parallels this language for senators.

There is no such language regarding the president.

As for local elections, those are not addressed at all in the Constitution. State officeholders would be regulated by the state constitution; local office holders by local statutes, etc. However, once the state holds an election, equal protection (along with the right to vote for women, minorities, and 18 year olds) must apply.

[claudiajean]

18. Word. What my fine colleague said. n/t

[Bill Bored]

19. And how about equal protection for political parties

such as the Democrats? There is none, is there?

As I mentioned in the other thread, it occurs to me that disenfranchisement of African American voters is really a form of racial profiling. (Keep in mind that Blackwell himself is African American.) While there may be racists among the Repukes, their real goal is to weaken the Democratic party and advance a mostly corporate agenda. If people with red hair were disproportionately Democrats, they'd be disenfranchised too. Kenyon College is a perfect example of this.

So, is there any guarantee that the opposition party has as much right to vote as members of the majority? Or is this somehow understood because Democrats were historically never second class citizens? (I'd argue we are now though!)

[theboss]

22. That's frankly a pretty odd argument.

The language on equal protection deals with protected classes. Protected classes are members of certain races, religious groups, and I believe, the disabled. Women are in an intermediate category. Gays have yet to be added to a protected class.

"Democrats" are hardly a protected class. But black people are so any real discrimination against black voters would be a big, flashing red light violation of the 14th Amendment (not to mention the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act).

[The Judged]

24. Democrats & Re-uglicans actually have an unconstitutional franchise

over the federal and state governments and their elections that is not protected by or authorized by the US Constitution.

But, who is going to argue this injustice?

Their control is a classic example of: they do therefore they are allowed to do.

Just as Constitutional Amendments have been used to clarify voter rights, they could also be used to clarify the peoples rights to not have political parties exercise franchise over the election process or any government office or agency.

[theboss]

25. That's the opposite of what the other fellow wants

He seems to want a built-in protection to keep the D/R Franchise going.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I am not sure how such an amendment would read.

[The Judged]

29. lol, at least we are not in disagreement on this. lol

[Bill Bored]

30. I was just trying to point out

that Democrats were the injured "parties" in this election. You didn't have to be Black to be denied the vote, although it sure helped! It wasn't just racism. Of course the Glibs and other 3rd parties have it worse than we do, but I don't think they've targeted for voter suppression. The point is that one party should NOT be able to deprive members of another of the right to vote based on their party affiliation.

[theboss]

38. They're not a protected class

You couldn't file a discrimination suit as a Democrat without meeting a ridiculously high standard of review.

[Bill Bored]

52. My point exactly!

They are discriminating against Democrats, not just African Americans who happen to be Democrats, but since the opposition is NOT a protected class, we have no case.

Now, could THIS have been their strategy all along?

People like Blackwell, Condi, Powell and Clarance Thomas are "proof" that as a ruling party, they don't discriminate against Blacks.

I don't mean to offend anybody. Racism is abhorrent, but I'm saying in the courts, they might be able to prove that they aren't racist. They just hate Democrats (except for Zel Miller of course).

[theboss]

57. You don't understand this

I'm sorry, but you are missing the point. A state can't discriminate against anyone. If Republicans admitted that they were discriminating against Democrats, they would lose. It would pass the higher scrutiny.

What you don't get is that if in discriminating against Democrats, the state discriminated against blacks, they lose.

I think you believe there needs to be intent to discriminate. There doesn't need to be intent, simply action of a discriminatory nature. (You could make the argument that in segregation the intent was not to discriminate; in fact, the courts never focussed on intent, simply results).

14th Amendment law is a results-oriented exercise.

[The Judged]

21. thanks, but the problem remains that the Constitution suggests ...

that states' rights trump individuals' rights.

See here for my explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=256544&mesg_id=260034

[theboss]

23. That's not true

The constitution states that the "people" elect senators and representatives. And in any election, there can be no restrictions based on race, gender, religion, age above 18, or literacy. It's really pretty clear.

[The Judged]

26. did you read my linked post and explanation?

[theboss]

27. I already explained it.

We have no federal constitutional right to vote for president or vp.

We clearly have a federal constitutional right to vote for Senators and Reps.

We have no federal constituional right to vote for state or local officers, and frankly I don't see why we need one.

But we do have very clear standards that define what voters are.

I don't know what exactly you want.

[The Judged]

28. what about 80 lb paper weight? Failure to answer a political party letter?

State authorized political party control, even when obvious, over the voting process, voter registration, and election resource allocation.

States exercise franchise to this day, and federal courts do nothing, because they vest the state with the authority to resolve these issues, unless there is clear violation of the Constitution based on race, etc.

By virtue of voter history, and the failure for the federal government to be prepared to act on issues outside of the scope described above, the states Constitutional rights to choose voters seems apparent to me.

Though I find this to be disgusting and wish it weren't true, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how it is that the states can set any standard that limits a voters right in any way, if they are an American citizen and resident of that state.

The only explanation offered thus far is that the Constitution allows states to decide who shall be authorized to vote.

[Bill Bored]

33. OK, OK, you have a point but you'd have to read your state's

Constitution and laws to see what they say.

But if you take my example of the opposition party, I think it's a good one.

Let's say Party A runs the state. They want to win all the elections held in their state, including the federal ones. The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing the rights of the opposition party, Party B -- only the protected classes mentioned by theboss. So what's to prevent Party A from depriving Party B with such things as voting machines, as long as they can prove it's not say, racially motivated, which Blackwell could argue it wasn't, because he's African American and because white Democrats were also disenfranchised?

[theboss]

45. There are criminal laws on the books to prevent such things

The Constitution isn't everything. The Constitution is silent on murder too. That doesn't mean that a state could legalize murder of Democrats.

[Bill Bored]

32. I agree

and if you happen to be a member of the opposition party, you wait in line for 8 hrs. because there aren't enough voting machines for you. And from what you say, it might be perfectly legal too.

[theboss]

39. If it was done in a white, Democratic suburb, it probably would

But since this sort of thing primarily happens to black people, it's an equal protection issue.

[Bill Bored]

53. What about Kenyon College? n/t

[theboss]

58. That's trickier

Like I've said, it's really hard to build a 14th Amendment case around discrimination against a non-protected class.

But you're focus is too narrow. There are probably statutes in Ohio that prevent the sort of chicanery that went on. You know the line about "not building a federal case" out of something? Well, don't build a federal case out of every election foul-up. I would start with Ohio law and work my way up.

[nyy26wc]

61. Don't forget about fundamental rights

It's only difficult build a 14th Amendment case around discrimination against a non protected class if you are talking about a nonfundamental right. If you're talking about a fundamental right, then the nature of the class is irrevalent.

For example, look at Texas v. Lawrence, which was the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Texas's sodomy law. Homosexuals are not a suspect class. But, since consensual adult sex is a fundamental right, discrimination is barred (unless the state satisfies strict scrutiny), regardless of the nonsuspectness of the class involved.

[Bill Bored]

62. Well this sounds reassuring as does the Texas case below

But then it's back to Arnebeck et al and the Ohio SC which may not even hear his case.

[Bill Bored]

36. Very Clear

You don't restrict any of those people, as long as they're Republicans! The only systematic disenfranchisement is against the opposition party. It's diabolically brilliant. Tell me this isn't what they're up to.

Do you honestly think they would be interested in suppressing the Black votes if it were Republican?

[theboss]

41. The courts don't care

I don't know why you are needlessly complicating the issue. The Constitution provides a giant fly-swatter to prevent discrimination against black voters. I don't know why you want to jump through a bunch of hoops to make it discrimination against Democrats.

[Bill Bored]

55. Because this could be their defense, that's why

If they can show that it wasn't racially motivated, by having a Black SOS, etc. and that Kenyon College was affected too, they can say they didn't violate equal protection. It's not racism, it's just "politics."

Look how they are purging the CIA, stacking the courts, etc. Do you think they're just throwing out or not appointing Blacks? No. Just those who disagree with their policies, i.e., Democrats.

I think we will have to come to this realization sooner or later and stop playing ONLY the race card.

[theboss]

59. Motives don't matter in equal protection cases

Results do.

If there was motive to discriminate, it's probably a state crime of some kind and there is no response to file a civil law suit.

I think you believe that equal protection cases are criminal cases; they aren't. Nobody went to jail over Brown v Board. They are civil cases in which the plaintiffs typically are seeking injunctive relief.

[Bill Bored]

60. There's still a plaintiff and a defendant aren't there?

So let's say Blackwell is the defendant. Has he violated equal protection if he disenfranchises Democrats without regard to their race, etc? If he can prove that he didn't discriminate against a protected class, only against Democrats, some of whom just happened to be African Americans, can't he win the case, i.e., there will be no injunctive relief for the plaintiffs?

[Bill Bored]

31. Corporate Rights are the problem! n/t

[eomer]

46. I think the problem is with the remedies.

IANAL, but it seems to me that there are federal protections against many of the things that occurred in Ohio but that the remedies do not lend themselves to correcting the result.

Let's say hypothetically that vote suppression activities were enough to change the result and that vote suppression was largely race-oriented. This would be a violation of Equal Protection and the Voting Rights Act.

The problem is that in the case of the presidential election, you can't get the courts to address these issues in a timely way in order to affect the result. By the time you get the court cases moving, the important dates of Dec 13 and Jan 6 are long past.

[thanatonautos]

49. I think Durbin is correct about Bush v Gore.

The Supreme Court noted that a State may, at it's own discretion,
choose to select its electors in another way than by popular
election, and that the constitution does not guarantee
a right of the people to vote for President.

See the per curiam in Bush v Gore, on page 5,
immediately under section B.

`The individual citizen has no federal right to vote
for electors for President of the United States unless
and until the state legislature chooses a statewide
election as its means to implement its power to appoint
members of the electoral college.' US Const. Article II, (1).

See also Rehnquist and Scalia's concurrence in
Bush v. Gore at page 2, referencing again
Article II, section 1, cl. 2 of the constitution,
"which specifies: `each state shall appoint in
such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct'
electors for President and Vice President."

AFAIK electors are in fact chosen by popular vote
in all 50 states, excepting in extraordinary situations.

If the right does not exist, there can be no fraud,
except in elections for those offices determined by popular
vote. In other words, I'm asking if the notion of the
Presidential Election itself is really the fraud?

The right to vote for electors has been granted under State
Law, by the State legislatures, and in addition, the crime of
State election fraud is well-defined under State Laws.

However, I am in agreement that the right of all
individuals to vote in federal elections should have
been explicitly guaranteed in the constitution.

[Mojorabbit]

51. Re number 2

I could swear that one of the speakers yesterday said it was a private company who decided where the machines went. Or I could be having a brain fart.

[TruthBeTold22]

56. In Ohio

Those decisions are made by the BOE