The Nevada lawsuit will not disenfranchise voters.
Consider the two outcomes of the suit:
1) The court says, "the current caucus structure does not violate tenants of election law, or of basic constitutional fairness." The End. (Or says it's too late for a remedy, or for whatever reason does nothing.)
2) The court says, "the current caucus structure violates Nevada election law, the voting rights act, or basic tenets of equal protection... and the following remedy should be made."
The "disenfranchisement!!!" shouters seem to be saying that
even if the current set-up violates fundamental voting rights, they don't care as long as it benefits Senator Obama.Seriously, have you thought this through? If the court throws out the complaint as baseless, then there is nothing to complain about.
And if the the court says, "Whoa... this is a serious violation of the rights of individual voters! We need to fix this somehow," then that prospect upsets you? Why?
American courts have done more to ensure fairness in elections than any other institution, and asking for judicial review of voting procedures is not a Republican thing, it is a Democratic thing. The courts are the good guys in these matters.
I commented on this business earlier and tossed out an opinion of the merits of the case, which I should not have, because my opinion of Nevada election law is obviously less informed than a finding of a Nevada court will be. It was stupid for me to have an opinion of the merits just for the sake of having an opinion. I don't need an opinion because the matter is before the court, and I trust the courts in these matters... certainly more than I trust any campaign or other interested party.
All precedent and judicial philosophy has a bias toward the fullest enfranchisement, and a reluctance to enter intra-party political arrangements unless there's a problem so serious it flies in the face of basic fairness. And since this is a primary there is not even the usual suspicion of partisanship. (Our perception of the adjudication of voting rights issues should not be based on what the Supreme Court did for Bush. That was a special case that flew in the face of a long and glorious history of the judiciary's role in ensuring voting rights and election fairness.)
Given the courts' reticence to weigh in on political questions, in the unlikely event that the court finds a problem it is going to be a
serious problem that we SHOULD all want fixed. And if the court does nothing there's nothing to even argue about.
So this melt-down here is outrage over the prospect of a court looking at a voting scheme. And the court will not enter the case and change anything unless there is clear disenfranchisement of somebody. So you are saying you don't mind disenfranchisement at all... just disenfranchisement that hurts your candidate. If it hurts a different candidate you're fine with it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
