On January 10, the Sixth Circuit issued a 24-page opinion in George v Hargett, 16-5563. The issue was how to interpret the Tennessee Constitution, which says, “If the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of all the citizens of the State voting for Governor, voting in their favor, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Constitution.”
In November 2014, an Amendment concerning abortion was on the ballot, Amendment One. It received 729,163 votes in favor, and 657,192 “No” votes, for a total of 1,386,355 votes cast on the amendment.
The number of votes cast for Governor in November 2014 was 1,353,728. Because Amendment One received more “yes” votes than “no” votes, and because the “yes” vote was also greater than 50% of the gubernatorial vote, the state declared the amendment had passed. However, in 2016, a U.S. District Court said the measure could not have passed until the state re-counted all the votes to see if it had received more “yes” votes than “no” votes from among only those voters who had cast a ballot for Governor. In other words, the U.S. District Court thought that only the votes of persons who had voted for Governor should count when deciding whether Amendment One had passed.
State election officials, and a state court, had rejected this reading of the Constitution. The Sixth Circuit decision of January 10, 2018, says that the state court’s interpretation should be followed. The Sixth Circuit rejected the contention of the opponents of the Amendment that the state court interpretation discriminates against any voter. Therefore, in the future, if a measure receives more “yes” votes than “no” votes, and if the number of “yes” votes is also greater than 50% of the vote cast in the gubernatorial vote cast, it passes. Thanks to How Appealing for this news.
A mere 3 LONG years after the 2014 election to get the Fed Ct App opinion — subject to more appeals – entire Fed 6 Cir Ct App and/or SCOTUS.
General mess – the various regimes have created total paralysis in lots of legal areas —
ie the whole mess of having to go to court for *declaratory* judgments.
The *judicial power* is about ACTUAL violations of the LAW – civil or criminal — about actual acts or omissions.
Alleged violations of State law in State courts — with possible USA law defenses.
Alleged violations of USA law in USA courts.
Much too difficult for the many lawyer MORONS in New Age cases — due to the SCOTUS morons in earlier cases — totally screwing up State/USA violations in State/Fed courts.
In sane States — a majority of the voters voting on a ballot question determine the result.
Non-votes deemed irrelevant.
Still a number of DARK AGE insane regimes in the USA.