On April 12, two judges of the Tenth Circuit stayed the U.S. District Court’s February 2018 order in Semple v Williams, 18-1123. The district court had enjoined a 2016 law that says initiatives must be signed by 2% of the registered voters in each of the 35 State Senate districts. The district court said that violates “one person, one vote” because the population of a State Senate district is not necessarily proportional to the number of registered voters in each State Senate district.
The order of the Tenth Circuit is only two pages and does not explain why the Tenth Circuit stayed the lower court order. The Tenth Circuit order is signed by Judges Carolyn McHugh and Nancy Moritz. Both are appointees of President Obama.
The lawsuit had been filed by proponents of an initiative that would have established universal health care in Colorado.
Can someone please explain this in non-legal terms?
Gerrymander math in ALL 50 States —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = 25 OR LESS PERCENT OLIGARCHY.
MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse extremist primary math —
about 5-15 percent — that nominates the GANGSTER oligarchs who later get elected in the rigged districts.
The CORRUPT TYRANT GANGSTER OLIGARCHS make most of the laws —
want ZERO Democracy laws — via initiatives.
The CRISIS in the USA is N-O-W.
Too many SUPER-MORON / CORRUPT PARTY HACK LAWYERS AND JUDGES TO COUNT.
PR and AppV.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/814/
MUST READING —
IF (REPEAT IF) THE USA IS GOING TO SURVIVE.
All right! Victory for our side.
@DR, Moore v Ogilvie is not applicable to the facts in Colorado.
2% of the registered voters in each of the 35 State Senate districts —
JR — obviously the 2 percent is always unknown / obsolete due to new voters, new movers in State and RIP dead.
How about 2 percent in each precinct ???
———-
One result of the 3 USA gerrymanders —
another un-declared Act of WAR tonight in Syria.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague03.htm
Laws of War : Opening of Hostilities (Hague III); October 18, 1907
III CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES
Article 1 The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
[See Japanese Empire intentional / negligent violation on 7 Dec 1941 — that got some top Japanese leaders HUNG after the Japanese Empire surrender in Aug 1945.].
Article 2 The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph. Neutral Powers, nevertheless, cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war.
Articles 3-8 omitted.
—
How many *surprise* attacks since 1907 by ALL barbarian savage killer regimes ???
Thus — how many USA UN-declared WARS in 1789-1907 and 1907-2018 ???
The 10th Circuit probably based its decision on the possibility of irreperable harm if the district court decision is overturned. In an ordinary election for office, the state is not particularly harmed if candidate X is placed on the ballot, then elected. First, candidate X is unlikely to be elected in the first place, and the state does not have a particular interest in whether X or Y is elected. Candidate Y may be harmed if he is defeated, but he doesn’t have an entitlement to being elected. At best he can claim that he has to expend funds explaining to voters why they should vote for him.
But in this case, an initiative could be placed on the ballot under the old standards, and then if the decision is reversed, there would be an issue of whether the initiative itself should be reversed. A constitutional amendment can only be repealed by another amendment, and it is conceivable that an initiative to do so could not not qualify under the higher standards.
In 2016, Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment, that itselt was an initiative, that set a higher standard for constitutional initiatives. Before then, the standard for a statuotory initiative and a constitutional initiative were the same, and so some constitutional amendments were more in the form of statutory language, since it was just as easy to propose, and impossbile to the legislature to amend.
The blog entry may suggest that the new threshold was imposed by statute, and that it applies to all initiatives.
The district court decision suggests that the SCOTUS in ‘Reynolds v Sims’ made a nuanced distinction between population and voters. This is false. They simply ignored the issue. In ‘Wesberry v Sanders’, Justice Harlan noted that the opinion of the court swept the issue under the rug.
@DR, The 2% is determined at the time the ballot title is approved. An initiative must be circulated in 6 months. Your concerns about a constantly changing electorate are overwrought,
You have not explained why you believe Moore v Ogilvie is applicable to the facts in Colorado.
JR can post ALL the *facts* of the ANTI-Democracy machination of the CO gerrymander statists. — ie the full text of the 2016 so-called law and all related stuff.
Seen one machination of the gerrymander statists — seen them all.
Any JR response to —
Gerrymander math in ALL 50 States —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = 25 OR LESS PERCENT OLIGARCHY ???
— passing *laws* like the 2016 *law*.
—
PR and AppV
@DR, The constitutional amendment was passed with 56% support.
Explain how Moore v Ogilvie applies?
JR can post ALL the *facts* of the ANTI-Democracy machination of the CO gerrymander minority rule statists — ie the full text of the 2016 so-called law and all related stuff.
Whether a const amdt passes with 50.0001 or 99.9999 percent is irrelevant.