Late last year, Professor Michael Kang, who is both a political scientist and a law professor, wrote “Gerrymandering and the Constitutional Norm Against Government Partisanship.” The paper argues that no election law that is based on a desire to help one particular political party can be constitutional. That paper has just won the prize for the year’s best election law paper. The award was made by the Association of American Law Schools, Election Law Section.
The paper is 71 pages long and can be read here. Professsor Kang has been writing for some years in favor of equal and tolerant ballot access, and he is also a foe of “sore loser” laws. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Attention ALL Profs–
ALL of the major legislative bodies in the U.S.A. since 4 July 1776 have been evil and vicious ANTI-Democracy OLIGARCHIES due to minority rule pack/crack SINGLE MEMBER gerrymander district election systems – both houses of the U.S.A. Congress, all houses of all State legislatures and many, many local legislative bodies.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
Much, much worse primary math which nominates the HACK extremists who later get elected in the rigged gerrymander districts — i.e. REAL minority rule about 5 to 15 percent.
Major result – LAWLESS tyrant U.S.A. Presidents (esp. with undeclared foreign wars), State governors, local mayors, etc.
The MORON educational systems have been brainwashing the USA public since 1776 with its EVIL false claim that the major govts in the USA are *democratic* — IE nonstop EVIL BIG L-I-E for generations.
—
End the EVIL BIG LIE —
PR and Appv.
That paper has just won the prize for the year’s best election law paper!
Can he file his paper as an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court?
BIT LATE FOR filing *REGULAR ORDER* STUFF.
BUT – SCOTUS clerks may look at the paper.
Plaintiff attorneys may try to file update info — ie a link to the paper.
Does he think that election laws that is based on a desire to help two particular political parties is OK? Because that’s what we have.