So you've all been following the Minnesota recount, right? Coleman keeps on fighting, but he's behind and continues to lose ground. He is threatening to take his case to the MN Supreme Court, and if unsuccessful there, to the US Federal Court system.
The argument he's making is that the judges of the Election Contest Court set a strict standard for counting rejected ballots, whereas the local elections commissioners used variable standards which were generally less strict. This violates the Equal Protection clause, wrongly disenfranchising many MN voters (some of whom, he hopes in vain, may have been Coleman voters).
All of a sudden there are some conservatives calling on Coleman to concede -- what gives? They've kept Franken out of the Senate for three months, and playing the delaying game on could have tangible political benefits. Why give in now?
This DKos diary looks at the potential of the Equal Protection clause becoming controlling precedent in future election contests -- Scalia's Nightmare:
The argument he's making is that the judges of the Election Contest Court set a strict standard for counting rejected ballots, whereas the local elections commissioners used variable standards which were generally less strict. This violates the Equal Protection clause, wrongly disenfranchising many MN voters (some of whom, he hopes in vain, may have been Coleman voters).
All of a sudden there are some conservatives calling on Coleman to concede -- what gives? They've kept Franken out of the Senate for three months, and playing the delaying game on could have tangible political benefits. Why give in now?
This DKos diary looks at the potential of the Equal Protection clause becoming controlling precedent in future election contests -- Scalia's Nightmare:
What Norm is threatening to do -- if he can't get his way in state court -- is to demand that the US Supremes go storming through the equal protection door they opened just a crack, and then promptly tried to close again, in Bush v. Gore.Fascinating. Jim -- any thoughts?
But if we're really going to start vigorously applying the 14th Amendment to how votes are cast and counted in this country, then a whole bunch of GOP-friendly election realities are going to be open to constitutional challenge. How, for example, is it "equal" for poor and urban precincts to have 1/5th the number of voting machines per capita as wealthy surburban ones? Is it "equal" for election officials to routinely deny elderly, undereducated or inexperienced voters the assistance they need to understand complex, confusing and/or poorly constructed ballots? Is it "equal" for prosecutors to aggressively pursue registration fraud cases against ACORN, while generally ignoring those against GOP-leaning groups?
Can you say "disparate impact"? How about "protected class"?
Back here in the real world, the US Supremes probably wouldn't come within a country mile of granting Norm cert, not unless it's to take a nail gun to that equal protection door. But does the Republican Party really want to take that risk?
1 comment:
I think DKos is on to something. The Supremes don't want Bush v. Gore to be used for anything.
I am not sure who would benefit from a more uniform election system. The current system is indeed terrible.
I think courts want to generally stay out of these because they are so much about details.
Shit, I should go to work today.
Post a Comment