On January 19, U.S. District Court Judge Gershwin Drain issued this order in the lawsuit over straight-ticket voting, which is Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute v Johnson, e.d., 2:16cv-11844. The case is over whether the U.S. Constitution requires Michigan to keep the straight-ticket device, even though the legislature repealed it in early 2016. The plaintiffs argue that eliminating the device injures African-American voters.
The order says that the state’s attempt to dismiss the case fails, and that a trial will be needed to gather evidence. Pages 20-21 mentions the party logo (“vignette”) as a reason to keep the straight-ticket device. It is strange that the judge mentioned the logo, because logos were repealed in 2017 by HB 4177. Perhaps the state’s briefs have never told the judge about this change in the law.
It is unfortunate that no one has told the judge that straight-ticket voting is very harmful to independent candidates. The state doesn’t seem to be interested in making that argument, and no one has intervened in the case on behalf of independent candidates. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/19/michigan-straight-ticket-voting-trail/109615720/
Top Donkey Hacks obviously want the Donkey *logo*/Name on ballots to win in marginal gerrymander districts – esp Mich state reps.
Multi-spot PR and AppV — which would NOT have the special *logo*/party name stuff.
If removal of the device would cause voters to require longer to vote, resulting in longer lines, resulting in more deterred voters, then the solution is to provide more voting machines.
If voting machines are a limited resource, then they should be allocated among voting precincts in a way that produces equal voting delays in all precincts. Otherwise, you have an equal protection violation. But if straight-ticket voting is indeed quicker, then precincts with higher percentages of straight-ticket voters should be allocated relatively fewer machines. But that in turn may induce voters to vote straight-ticket, because the assumption is that voters in that location will continue to vote more “efficiently.”
Imagine an 18-Year Old voting for the first time. She spends hours deciding who to vote for in each individual race. She is in a long line, but she doesn’t care because it is her first time to vote. The person in line next to them is older and is fuming about the line. The 18-Year Old chirps about how they have investigated every single office on the ballot. The old man looks like he might have a heart attack, as he mutters “One and Done, or Two and Through” to indicate that he is not telling her who vote for, but in reality he has already judged her by her clothing or skin color. She finally gives in and votes straight ticket, a decision that she was bullied into.
What language in the U S Constitution can possibly require a state government ballot publishing monopoly to carry advertising for any political party on its compulsory ballot? Nor can the U S Constitution compel or allow a state to advertise the names of candidates. The voters have to right to publish the names of parties and candidates they favor when they author and publish their ballots for the state election officials to read and count.
Congress shall make no law – abridging the freedom to author and publish a ballot – is implicit in the First Amendment. Nor can states be allowed to slip around that constitutional prohibition.
J.R. —
ALL snail mail paper ballots — Oregon, etc. survive.
—
DFR –
See book — Sources of our Liberties, ed by Richard L. Perry (Am Bar Assn, 1959) [now on internet]
— before SCOTUS hacks went totally NUTS in the 1960s — including Williams v Rhodes 1968
Basically — the 1st Amdt has ZERO to do with election *mechanics* — ballots, voting, vote counting, etc.
OTHER Const parts do —
Art IV, Sec 4 — Republican Form of Government
14th Amdt, Secs 1 and 2
etc.
A voter always needs to decide before actually voting, that seems like an obvious thing to point out but . . . Also straight ticket voting is a gift to partisan forces. If a voter is really so partisan themselves as to needing the break from the formality of voting for each office independently they may well miss where a crucial ballot line does not feature their favored party.
The judge ordered a trial, noting that voters who had to contemplate who they would have to vote for on each office, would take longer to vote. A voter might get sidetracked as they contemplated whether “to be or not to be” was from Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.
Any useless data ???
Percent of Voters regarding partisan offices who Vote —
party logo ONLY
party logo and specific other party candidates
NOT vote the party logo – only specific party candidates — ALL or some or none