Posted on 10/26/2004 5:10:02 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
Judge dismisses case challenging Amendment 36
DENVER - A federal court judge refused to block voters from voting on Amendment 36.
In a four-hour session Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock threw out the lawsuit challenging Amendment 36, saying he lacked jurisdiction.
The case was brought forth by Fort Collins resident Jason Napolitano. Napolitano believes the amendment is unconstitutional because only the Colorado Legislature has the power to alter the state's Electoral College system.
If Amendment 36 passes it will change the way Colorado's electoral votes are counted in the presidential election.
Currently the winner of Colorado's popular vote is allotted all nine of the state's electoral votes. However if the amendment passes, electoral votes would be divided up to reflect the percentage of the popular vote earned by a candidate. If it passes, the new system would take effect this election.
Opponents to the amendment say it is unconstitutional because it changes the rules in midstream. The amendment's supporters say it is fair because each candidate would win electoral votes in direct proportion to the amount of votes garnered statewide.
Amendment 36 has brought national attention to the upcoming election in Colorado. If the presidential election is as close as some predict, Amendment 36 could decide the election's outcome.
(The Denver Post contributed to this report. Copyright by KUSA-TV, All Rights Reserved)
Everyone I have talked too ( R & D )says this is the dumbest idea they have ever heard but no one knows where it came from or who proposed it. Can someone who is smarter than me find this out for me?
I saw the guy on MSNBC the other night. I believe he was an attorney (guy in his late 50's early 60's). A Democrat I am most certain.
And this is exactly why the liberal wankers in Colorado proposed it and pushed to get it on the ballot.
The fact that it takes effect, if passed, THIS election only exposes them for what they are. And what their creedo is:
Californians (and more Californians than the one mentioned) are bringing it to Colorado. See comment #5.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1258019/posts?page=5#5
So the solution is to appeal to a fed judge who does have
jurisdiction.
The measure is unconstitutional. Only legislatures are
authorized to determine the method of selecting electors.
> ... and more legal challenges could be on the way because
> the proposal would take effect immediately if approved.
Violates federal election law regarding changes prior
to elections, not to mention that it's ex-post-facto
for every vote cast before the outcome is clear. The
voters have no way to no what rules they are voting under.
Basically, a vote for this is a vote for post-election
chaos (if the outcome is tight), ending in a judicial
reversal to status quo.
If the sponsors of this wanted anything else but chaos,
they would have made it effective 2008, not 2004.
A liberal activist from California gave the idea to somebody in Colorado.
"1. Obfuscate, misdirect if you can, lie if you have to.
2. If that fails, change the rules."
3. If that fails, start shooting.
The Electoral College is one of the mechanisms that keep us living in a republic rather than a mob-ruled democracy; and that is why the socialists hate it!
There are always more people willing to share the bread than work for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.