Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm confused (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If Nebraska's and Maine's existing systems cannot said to be constitutional because they have never been challenged in court, then how can you declare them to be unconstitutional. Even if you are a JSCOTUS you are not all seven of them.

    Sorry, today I have to go with the notion this stuff is legal, based on the observation two states have done this.

    •  Let me clarify for you. (0+ / 0-)

      A lot of people say "of course this is constitutional, Maine and Nebraska do it."  But laws are not "pre-cleared" for constitutionality before they are allowed to go into effect.   If a state passes a law, it goes into effect.  Period.  If someone is hurt by it, they can bring a lawsuit and claim it is unconstitutional.  DOMA, for instance, was the law and is in effect, and will be until and unless the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional.  The fact that it stood for 10+ years without legal challenge does not mean that it's constitutional.  It just means no court had addressed the issue.

      Here, for whatever reason (but probably because the Maine and Nebraska laws have never had any effect or likely effect on the outcome of a Presidential race) no one has ever bothered to sue Maine or Nebraska to challenge their electoral-vote statute.  So we just don't know if those states' plans are constitutional or not; no one's asked a Court to answer the question.  They're the law now, and they're applied now, and will be until and unless a lawsuit is brought and a Court strikes them down.  Until then, who knows if they pass equal protection muster?

      I'm only saying that the Republican schemes for VA, MI and the other states are arguably unconstitutional due to their intent and effect of diluting the vote of the majority of those states' voters.  I'm not opining on the Nebraska and Maine plans, which do not appear to have the same intent behind them or diluting effect.  All I'm saying is that if you have a law that has never been challenged, the mere existence of the law is not an argument for its constitutionality.  

      •  But this all flies in the face of your title (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You are telling your readers the GOP proposal is unconstitutional. If an existing law might be one day ruled unconstitutional, is it not prudent to think one day a blogger's opinion might be refuted by the actual SCOTUS?

        Myself, I am going to assume the GOP ploy is constitutional and politic to head it off. That is the best mindset to advertise IMO.

        •  Yes, I think it's unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

          Of course it's my opinion.  It's a legal argument.  I'm not a judge.  I think most people understand that, without the need to have wishy-washy titles.  Your hostility is really bizarre.  Where is it written that you can't politically fight something while also preparing to argue that a law is illegal?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site