On Wednesday, July 25, the Eleventh Circuit heard Hand v Scott, 18-11388. This is the case over whether the Florida system for restoring voting rights for ex-felons is too arbitrary to be constitutional. Ex-felons can never again vote unless the Governor grants them relief. The voters who filed the case argue that the state must have objective standards and that the current system depends entirely on the whim of the Governor.
Here is a recording of the oral argument, which lasted 63 minutes. The panel consisted of Judge Ed Carnes, a Bush Sr. appointee; Elizabeth Branch, a Trump appointee; and visiting U.S. District Court Judge Darrin Gayles, an Obama appointee.
Here is a news story about the hearing.
Some sort of difference between *arbitrary* and *too arbitrary* ???
Both are LAWLESS tyrant stuff – by definition.
One thing that Richard generally fails to note, is that Florida, Virginia, and Iowa do not enfranchise felons after they have completed their sentence.
Whether a governor signs or vetoes a bill, or appoints a judge is also at his whim.
Conviction of criminals is not based on an objective standard.
It would be nice if Richard would also note that the implementation of ranked choice voting (RCV) in single-winner districts in SF, Oakland, Maine and other districts across the USA is wrong because one-party systems that they produce is undemocratic.
The U5A is a melting pot and we need competitive elections and everyone agrees.
But for CoFOE and other groups to push for the one-party system, while trying to snuff out those favoring the incremental improvement of Top Two which is a three-party system is just plain wrong.
I’m sorry but I’ve been watching the same MO for more than 35 years since I spoke at BAN headquarters in 1993/4 when I ran for Gov of California.
It’s been frustrating to get no traction on what’s right and to have so many missed opportunities for more than two decades. We’re of working so hard and just to be greated with vile conflict, censorship and bullying but the principle is higher than all others so we go on.
We at the United Coalition USA tried but it wasn’t good enough. So now we’re trying to pass the torch to the next generations to give them a chance.
Sign up to be a volunteer if you’re interested in a unbiased mathematical voting system that guarantees our status for an extremely intricate design which protects all voters in mathematical detail unlike and other voting system that exists known as PPR.
http://www.allpartysystem.com/volunteers.php
What? Ranked Choice is a one party voting system but Top Two is a 3-party system? I wasn’t aware that California had a healthy choice between 3 or more parties in any given election. At its best there are two candidates from two parties (or a party candidate and an independent in rare cases), but it generally results in two candidates from the same party.
ALL *police power* [aka *public policy*] LAWS are totally arbitrary — in ALL regimes – democracy / oligarchy / monarchy — by definition of *police power*.
—
Ye olde Brit unwritten *common law* had all sorts of crimes and torts
— stuff that gets a FORCE reaction if the LAW does not intervene —
eg murder — relatives/friends of the dead might kill the murderer, etc.
Thus — the number of common law felonies with death by hanging —
early regime economics could NOT afford long term prisoners —
lots of poor folks barely surviving – crop failures = mass famine
— thus death penalty for many felony property crimes – armed robbery, arson of houses, etc.
Often swift *justice* in earlier times – arrest- indictment- trial- if conviction- hanging within days.
Prez/Guv pardon stuff is from the 1066 DARK AGE Brit regime —
early on – the top KILLER monarch was the judge and jury for disputes between top killer oligarchs/nobles — esp local turf control disputes / contracts.
bit later – the olde Brit common law courts created by the monarchs to get the monarch’s laws enforced in all of England
pardon stuff – part of the monarch’s *justice* system.
—
TOTAL separation of powers — pardon stuff ONLY in the separate courts.
—-
Definition of Elector should ONLY be citizen/allegiance, 18 plus, locality – for local/district elections
— NO crime stuff, NO mental stuff — always subject to major selective abuse by HACKS.
— ESP LOTS OF CRIMINALS PURGED VIA FALSE EVIDENCE — ESP IN *HIGH PROFILE* CRIMES.