[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

"Presidential Election Reform Act" unconstitutional, says Slate.com

by: plymouth

Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:13:20 AM PDT


Really fabulous write-up in Slate this morning about how the GOP proposition to change how our electors are determined (i.e. the plan to steal 20-22 electoral votes) is unconstitutional:

http://www.slate.com...

A short excerpt:

"In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution declares that electors shall be appointed by states "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." That's legislature. California's could scrap its current winner-take-all approach and adopt a district-by-district system for allocating electors (as only Maine and Nebraska currently do). But the voters-whom the initiative supporters have turned to because they don't have the support of the Democratic-controlled legislature-cannot do this on their own."

The more people know this the more likely it is to die a final death. "You can vote for it but all you'll be doing is costing the state a lot in legal fees while it gets challenged all the way up to the supreme court!" is a pretty good argument against voting for it.

plymouth :: "Presidential Election Reform Act" unconstitutional, says Slate.com
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I was about to diary this (having not seen Slate until tonight) (0.00 / 0)
and I'm glad to see it's still up.  I diaried it on DKos here.

I want to add two twists:

(1) This does not obviate the need for the Courage Campaign.  What it does mean is that this campaign may be able to play offense more than just defense.  Now the story line is that outside interests are trying to impose something clearly unconstitutional on California as well, dredging up unhappy memories of Bush v. Gore.  To me, this not only gives voters another strong reason to reject it, it makes it a stronger national story about how Republicans love stealing elections.

(2) It occurred to me that the Supreme Court (the U.S. one; this would involve federal law) could also try to steal the election back by ignoring precedent.  Well, there's one part of Bush v. Gore that should pretty much ensure that this time we'd win.  From a comment of mine on DKos:

Now here's an interesting twist, now that I think it through, under Bush v. Gore.  If there is a dispute over the 22 or so electors from districts that a Republican might win, both parties would be presenting their lists of these 22 electors as legitimate.  Who would decide whether they were legitimate?  Well, as we learned during the Bush v. Gore fight, the California Legislature would have the right to certify one slate of electors by, if I recall correctly, December 13 or so.  (I'm not looking up the U.S Code for an exact date; it's around there.)  The California Legislature is as Democrat-dominated as the Florida Legislature is Republican-dominated.  This time, unless I'm missing something, we'd win.


Ooh, I didn't think to cross-post, thanks! (0.00 / 0)
We need to make sure we educate our legislators though, about the (lack of) constitutionality. I don't trust them all to know this!

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox