Posted on 10/28/2004 12:05:17 AM PDT by Freesofar
A federal judge in Denver today left it up to Colorado voters to decide on Election Day whether to change the way the state distributes its electoral votes for president.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock dismissed a lawsuit that challenged a proposal on next week's ballot that would alter the Electoral College system in Colorado. He said that it is state issue and not a federal one, and that he lacked jurisdiction.
The measure, Amendment 36, would scrap Colorado's winner-take-all system for distributing its nine Electoral College votes. Instead, presidential candidates a would be awarded a share of the electoral votes based on the popular vote. The change would begin with this year's elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
Will Colorado be another Florida Supreme court battle or is this a done deal ?
I think this could conceivably end up in the Supreme Court, yes.
But at the moment the measure looks headed for defeat anyway. I think most people realize that they would want their favorite candidate, whoever it is, to get the full power of the state's electoral votes.
why would they file a challenge in federal court.. are they dense?
the polls said it will pass by an overwealming margin a few days ago, what happened ? TV ads ?
I'm voting against it, and I think a large majority of the rest of the state will as well.
It makes me think this will drag out the ratification for weeks.
Must have been a mistake. I haven't seen it ahead for some time.
Just hope the thing loses big
Well thats great news thanks !
This was a very good decision by the judge. Not the decision I hoped for, but the right decision.
On the other hand, there is a different issue that should be looked at by a judge.
Can you vote for a candidate and a measure on the ballot that changes how your vote affects that same candidate and have the results of the measure affect the same election?
If my statement above is unclear, let me clarify. It makes sense that the electoral votes measure would apply to the next presidential elction, but not the current one.
Because it's a federal issue.
From Art. II, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
There's the federal issue: there is no provision for revising the manner of allocation of Presidential Electors by ballot initiative. The Constitution specifically requires that the state legislatures determine this issue. Thus, the CO ballot initiative is unconstitutional.
And this federal judge is an idiot.
Rather, I am convinced that this measure would not pass constitutional muster in the SCOTUS.
Without going into details, I've read it, and on it's face it would not stand up.
I don't think that this judge wanted to interject himself into this mess during an election, knowing full well the question can wait to go (quickly) to SCOTUS if needed.
I can't believe a who;e state would be so stupid as to vote this measure in.
I think that refers to state legislatures.
oh.. OK. I agree.
The judge was right to dismiss the suit, but he did it for the wrong reason. He should have dismissed it because the issue is not yet ripe -- the referendum has not yet passed, so no one has been harmed. Filing this suit prior to the referendum being voted on was like filing a lawsuit because a bill has been introduced in Congress -- it's a non-starter. The judge should have dismissed on THAT basis, and told the plaintiffs to come back after Nov. 2, if the issue passes, and if they can demonstrate that they have been harmed.
The only point of concern I would have is that the Presidential election in Colorado may be certified before the ballot issue. It seems to me that you cannot change the system after the election (similar to the issue in Bush v Gore?)
There is federal law that disallows this being in effect this year. Federal law clearly states the rules that govern the selection of electors for the Presidency shall be the rules in place the day prior to the election. This was the basis for the first Gore v. Bush 9-0 ruling.
US Code
TITLE 3 > CHAPTER 1 > § 5
§ 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State.....
The federal law governing this is also very clear, it is the law in place the day prior to the election that governs. This law can not effect this years election.
No because the State legislature has decided to allow legislative matters to be decided by popular vote. It's a Colorado State constitutional question, not a Federal question.
Correct, see post 18 which was the law cited in the 9-0 ruling which overturned the Florida Supreme Court ruling to alter the rules of the election.
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.