On February 14, a U.S. District Court issued a ruling in Semple v Williams, 1:17cv-1007, a case over the 2016 law change that made it more difficult to get constitutional amendments on the Colorado ballot. The ruling makes it almost certain that the restriction will be invalidated. It requires signatures of 2% of the registered voters in each of Colorado’s 35 State Senate districts.
The flaw in the restriction is that it requires 2% of the registered voters, instead of some percentage of the population of each district, or instead of a flat number in each district. The ruling says that because some districts contain approximately 50% more registered voters than other districts, the law violates “one person, one vote.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
Interesting. Iowa has a similar requirement for candidates for office, where they have to get signatures from different counties based on a percentage of the vote: https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/candidates/2018govussensigchart.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/814/
Moore v Ogilvie
2018-1969 = a mere 47 years of subversion of the USA const in various regimes by various FELON HACKS.
Too many lazy USELESS USA and State attorneys to count.
typo –
mere 49 years
The SCOTUS folks continue to let the FELON HACKS ignore the USA Const
— the SUPREME L-A-W of the Land
— by NOT bringing down a gavel/hammer on the MORON felon skulls of the HACKS
— IE the USA District Courts do NOT automatically refer the HACKS to the local USA District Attorney for prosecution and/or convene a USA Grand Jury for Indictments.
*******
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
18 USC Sec 242 — spacing added
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill,
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
The opinion has the major confusion in the courts (IE SCOTUS hacks) regarding —
total populations,
registered voters and
actual votes/voters.
All 3 obsolete with movers and deaths.
The 2016 change was itself an initiated amendment.
Would it be unconstitutional to elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention from the state senate districts? What about a ratifying convention? What about a legislature if it is acting as a ratifying body for a constitutional amendment?
I suspect that if the amendment said that the minimum number of signatures from each senate district was 1/35 of 2% of the statewide number of registered voters that the plaintiffs would have filed suit, and the judge would have cited the same sources and come to the same conclusion.
Use of registered voters recognizes that districts are malapportioned because of using old census data. It may be flawed because of the inclusion of inactive voters are apparently included.
Something that is apparently overlooked is that the statewide standard is 5% of votes cast for the Secretary of State (98,492). The distribution threshold is 2% of registered voters in each district. But since that has to be met in every district, it requires at least 2% of statewide registered voters of (76,050). Assuming uniform turnout (voters/registered) this is equivalent to 3.86% of the votes cast.
It is quite possible that in a few districts more signatures are required, than if all signatures were evenly distributed (i.e. a district where more than 5% of the votes cast is required).
Had the same base been used, then the concerns of the plaintiffs are based on fantasy. If the distribution requirement was 2% of the votes cast in each district, then an initiative that reached 2% signatures in each district, would have to have 17% in 7 districts to get to 5% statewide. Or they would need 8% in half the districts.
And if there were no distribution requirement, they would go to areas with more voters because that is where the voters are.