On September 3, the Eleventh Circuit withdrew its original decision in Jacobson v Lee, 19-14552, and issued a new opinion. The first opinion, from April 29, upheld Florida’s law on ballot order because the plaintiff Democrats lacked standing. The new opinion says that ballot order lawsuits cannot even be entertained by federal courts, because they represent a “political question” that is outside the scope of litigation.
The vote is 2-1. Judges William Pryor, a Bush Jr. appointee; and Robert Luck, a Trump appointee, signed the opinion. Judge Jill Pryor, an Obama appointee, dissented. Her dissent is 82 pages, longer than the 70-page majority opinion.
It is ludicrous to say that federal courts cannot adjudicate laws on the order of candidates on the ballot. They have been doing so for fifty years. The majority says that because the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 held that partisan gerrymandering cases can’t be adjudicated in federal court, therefore ballot order can’t be either. But partisan gerrymandering cases are uniquely difficult because there is no obvious way to settle what is fair from what is not fair. By contrast, it is easy to design a fair ballot order system: either rotate the names of candidates from precinct to precinct, or hold a random method of choosing. One-third of the states use one of these methods. The dissent mentions these, and also suggests that putting candidates on the ballot by alphabetical order of their surname is fair. Not everyone agrees that that is fair.
Generally, when judges dissent, they say, at the bottom, “I respectfully dissent.” In this case, Judge Jill Pryor omitted the word “respectfully.”
When to politicized judges aren’t cooperating to bury third party and independent candidates, they spend their time stabbing each other.
Like watching the nazi courts in 1945 or Russia commie courts in 1991 or even French Revolution courts in early 1790s — ALL LAWLESS political hacks.
—-
NOOOOOOO such thing as a *political question* [dreamed up by SCOTUS HACKS] —
Each act/omission is legal/illegal —- LAW 000000001.
Yep. The judicial branch doesn’t seem to want to help minor parties and independents this year.
STONE AGE Gerrymander Math 000001 27 JULY 2020
1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED PACKED/CRACKED GERRYMANDER AREAS
= 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL
= OLIGARCHS / MONARCHS CONTROL MOST LAW-MAKING.
— with MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE EXTREMIST PRIMARY MATH.
The SCOTUS hacks gave a blank check for TOTAL ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE gerrymanders in Rucho v Common Cause, 588 U.S. ______ [docket 18-422] (27 June 2019)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
RESULT –
ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE LEGISLATIVE BODIES.
WITH WORSE AND WORSE LAWLESS EXECS/JUDICS — AKA LAWLESS MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS DE FACTO MAKING/ENFORCING THEIR OWN ***LAWS*** — IN ARBITRARY EXECUTIVE ORDERS / COURT JUDGMENTS.
Blatant subversion of RFG in 4-4 and/or EPC in 14-1 Amdt.
*******
SAVE DEMOCRACY REMEDY —
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR ALL LEGISLATIVE BODY ELECTIONS.
TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES to elect each Member.
Pre-election candidate rank order lists of other candidates. Surplus votes down. Loser votes up.
Both Majority Rule [DEMOCRACY] and Minority Representation.
ALL votes count.
NOOOOO GERRYMANDER COMMISSIONS NEEDED.
It was the practice for 100 years after ratification of the Constitution for voters to decide who could appear on the ballot by actually writing-in the names on the ballot themselves – individually. The states did not have a monopoly on the production of ballots until after 1888. THEN, the government ballot monopoly made the ballot a matter of endless litigation.
Each voter having an inherent right to write-in their choices would make ballot order non-justicable. But today the governments of the states do have a monopoly of the ballot and its format. This court decision reveals how deeply and deliberately biased the electoral processes are to sustain a monopoly to entrench the duopoly parties in power.
The solution which Libertarians are reluctant to advance (so far) is to adopt a uniform, open write-in ballot for use by U S citizens in all elections without the justification for fees, petitions, or censorship of the order of candidates on the ballot and such other arbitrary regulatory issues.