Categories Government
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
This is an excellent question, and it's something that I've thought about some over the last couple of months.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
Any merit to the notion that the rationales for some of these rulings will harm progressive challenges in future elections?
— Andrew Broering (@AndrewBroering) January 3, 2021
One says laches, another moot, another standing, sometimes with almost the same type of plaintiff.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
GP State Department diplomats work for Pompeo, not the other way around. They should shut their yaps or quit.
Also, it's telling how much the horrible, illegal attacks on the Capitol have made establishment DC and its permanent bureaucracy quake in their boots.
GP The bureaucrats have always assumed they were untouchable, unassailable, protected. They assumed things would never change and that people in the hinterlands could safely be ignored forever because they're backwards hick Jesus-loving gun clingers and too dumb to listen to.
GP Government's overall disregard for ordinary Americans from treating us like bottomless wallets to trying to force us to believe as they do to ignoring basic legal and constitutional restraints on their actions built resentment over time and DC was blind to it.
GP When the hicks from the sticks got Trump elected, DC fought back against Trump and by extension them with everything at its disposal. Media pushed made up crap to hamstring Trump. Biden and Obama secretly used government to torment and assail an incoming administration.
Also, it's telling how much the horrible, illegal attacks on the Capitol have made establishment DC and its permanent bureaucracy quake in their boots.
U.S. State Department diplomats and staff have expressed outrage at Secretary of State Mike Pompeo\u2019s failure to acknowledge, much less protest, President Trump\u2019s role in inciting rioters who laid siege to the Capitol.https://t.co/NvjcKSpta9
— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 12, 2021
GP The bureaucrats have always assumed they were untouchable, unassailable, protected. They assumed things would never change and that people in the hinterlands could safely be ignored forever because they're backwards hick Jesus-loving gun clingers and too dumb to listen to.
GP Government's overall disregard for ordinary Americans from treating us like bottomless wallets to trying to force us to believe as they do to ignoring basic legal and constitutional restraints on their actions built resentment over time and DC was blind to it.
GP When the hicks from the sticks got Trump elected, DC fought back against Trump and by extension them with everything at its disposal. Media pushed made up crap to hamstring Trump. Biden and Obama secretly used government to torment and assail an incoming administration.
This article by Jim Spellar for @LabourList misses the point about why Labour needs to think seriously about constitutional reform - and have a programme for it ready for government.
The state of our constitution is a bit like the state of the neglected electric wiring in an old house. If you are moving into the house, sorting it out is a bit tedious. Couldn’t you spend the time and money on a new sound system?
But if you ignore the wiring, you’ll find that you can’t safely install the new sound system. And your house may well catch fire.
Any programme for social democratic government requires a state with capacity, and a state that has clear mechanisms of accountability, for all the big and all the small decisions that in takes, in which people have confidence.
That is not a description of the modern UK state.
"Voters don\u2019t care about how the D\u2019Hondt system works or about how you\u2019d geographically carve up a regional assembly... They want results.\u2070"@spellar on why Labour should stop obsessing over constitutional issues: https://t.co/W0zsire5xI
— LabourList (@LabourList) February 11, 2021
The state of our constitution is a bit like the state of the neglected electric wiring in an old house. If you are moving into the house, sorting it out is a bit tedious. Couldn’t you spend the time and money on a new sound system?
But if you ignore the wiring, you’ll find that you can’t safely install the new sound system. And your house may well catch fire.
Any programme for social democratic government requires a state with capacity, and a state that has clear mechanisms of accountability, for all the big and all the small decisions that in takes, in which people have confidence.
That is not a description of the modern UK state.
