Posted on 11/16/2019 11:03:41 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A federal court in Tallahassee struck down a Florida law that listed the governor’s party first on all ballots, which Democrats argued gave Republicans a significant advantage in a state where the two biggest races in 2018 were both within 0.4 percentage points.
In his ruling, District Court Judge Mark Walker issued a permanent injunction against the law, stating it violates both the First and 14th amendments of the Constitution.
“Florida’s ballot order statute is not neutral; instead, it affects Plaintiffs’ rights in a politically discriminatory way,” Walker wrote. “… It is difficult to imagine what other purpose it could possibly serve than as a thumb on the scale in favor of the party in power.”
The plaintiffs, which included the Democratic National Committee and its campaign committees, cited research showing the statistical advantage of being listed first was estimated to be as high as 5.4 percentage points when Republican Party candidates are listed first and 3.92 points when Democrats are on top.
The 2018 U.S. Senate race in which then-Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, defeated former Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson was decided by 0.13 points. The governor’s race won by Republican Ron DeSantis over Democrat Andrew Gillum was decided by 0.4 points. Scott won his two races for governor by less than 1.2 points each.
While 3 to 5 points wasn’t “in and of itself a large proportion of the total vote, it is often a decisive proportion in terms of the spread between the candidates in a Florida election,” Walker ruled.
Walker concluded voters could also lose confidence in the integrity of Florida’s election system from knowing the order of candidates’ names was determined on a partisan basis.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
This clown is the fed judge the dems used for the Fl recount three times .
Now that Republicans are winning in FL--four governors in a row--Dems find the advantage they gave themselves for four decades is now UNFAIR!!!! /crybaby
Will it be appealed?
How utterly stupid can people be? If I were in charge, a lot of people (of whatever party) would be turning in their voter registration cards, because they don't deserve them.
The Slantenel is far lefty rag and ignores that part .
This same Obama Radical lefty judge was overturn during the recount .
I hope so.
It’s interesting that you ask because for the first 40 years of the law the Republicans were the disadvantaged. The law was passed in 1951 by Dems.
There are many studies that show that ballot order does make a difference.
He is as compromised as any other flaming RINO, and more so. Back in 1967, while an intern for Kentucky Senator John Sherman Cooper, Myth somehow [sarc] managed to get into the Army National Guard, at that time a common method for the politically connected to avoid the VietNam war. As a result of his conduct while in the Guard, he faced a Court Martial. His mentor [Senator Cooper] was never proved to have made the charges and perhaps even Myth's enlistment obligations go away, but, so the story goes, go away they did. Myth was immediately free to return to Senator Cooper's office,and did so. Documentary evidence for Myth's specific violation of the UCMJ, the charges against him, and their sudden and mysterious disappearance have surfaced very briefly in one of Myth's early campaigns. Suffice it, Myth, once rescued from disaster [and thus totally compromised even before he was anointed], did not scruple to wallow in the toxic slime of the Washington swamp, from his first day in office. In the pantheon of Washington scum, he rates very high indeed.
I think the incumbent should be listed LAST.
Some states vary the order by precinct. A candidate has the same chance of being listed first as any other on the average.
This does complicate counting, but eliminates any order bias.
The best answer for fairness in name placement on a ballot that I can think of should be that names/party affiliations should be ALTERNATED in printing the ballots in some fair manner (ballot-wise, precinct-wise, whatever). I think this solution is already being used in various places and in various ways across the fruited plain.
In all my filings for public office I had to participate in an official pulling-of-straws along with scores of other candidates for various offices. The drawing took place in the County Clerk's office. City, state and county newspaper photographers would show up to snap pictures at the big event....because a "first place" drawing would guarantee a first place spot in the drawer's particular political office category....and placement could sometimes mean failure or success in close elections for candidates......and, likewise, political parties in the whole.
A lot of suspense was goin' on at these drawings!
Leni
In addition to 1st and 14th Amendment concerns about voting ballots, the referenced judge also needs to question the constitutionality of state winner-take-all laws for electoral votes since they seem to violate 12th Amendment (12A) procedures for processing electoral votes imo, the states surrendering their power to make such laws in that amendment.
Excerpted from the 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added]; …"
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
The judge also needs to question why the states are limiting elector choices for POTUS to nominees of the constitutionally undefined political parties (Mark 3:24) since 12A doesn’t limit elector choices.
Excerpted from the 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President [emphasis added], and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; […]"
In fact, note that the constitutionally undefined presidential primaries are a product of the anti-constitutional republic Progressive Movement of the early 1900s, the ill-conceived 17th Amendment and other progressive era amendments also ratified in that era.
United States presidential primary (History)
Next, since most of the states, under the boots of the constitutionally undefined political parties, are arguably violating 12A in identical ways, the judge also needs to question if the states are violating the Constitution's “Agreement or Compact Clause” (1.10.3), the Founding States making that clause to prohibit the states from entering agreements or compacts without first getting permission from Congress.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State [emphasis added], or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Finally, note that the states have never expressly constitutionally given ordinary voters the specific power to vote for POTUS like they have for members of Congress.
In other words, the so-called power of citizens to vote for president is as politically correct as the phony civil rights protected by the unconstitutional Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) and its associated titles imo, the main purpose of CRA probably to keep corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification career lawmakers in power.
Regarding CRA, note that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific powers to make laws that protect on the basis of race and sex if such laws aren't directly related to voting issues.
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Are we having fun yet? 8^P
Corrections, insights welcome.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
This NEEDS TO BE APPEALED TO THE 11th CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals IMMEDIATELY.
There are 12 judges on the 11th CCA, evenly divided between Republican appointees and DemocRAT appointees. Next week (week of November 18) there are two Trump nominees (one of whom will replace a Clinton judge) to this court who will have their confirmation votes.
There’s a 3rd Trump nominee (Andrew Brasher) to the 11th CCA who is awaiting his hearing before Lindsey Graham’s Judiciary Committee. IMHO, Brasher is destined to be a SUPERSTAR Constitutionalist judge.
Again, Florida, IMMEDIATELY APPEAL this atrocious decision by this Agendanista Obama judge.
Funny thing is democrats fought for this when they had the democratic governor. You are right. Democrats fight.
Between this and a million felons voting. Made it harder for republicans to win.
In any case people should know whom they are voting for not just party.
Since the judge based the decision on the First and Fourteenth Amendments the GOP should check to see if there are similar laws that advantage Dems in other states and get those thrown out.
Agreed. There should also not be a straight ticket option.
Put the names side by side then.
If people are that stupid to only vote for people listed first, then they need to never vote again.
Really Lowell Wackjob’s Party was the Anti-Connecticut Party. Arrogant Bastard he was. Screwed up Connecticut, especially the ‘Lets Rob Connecticut’s Taxpayers Act’, which ushered in the downfall of Connecticut as a great state to live in...
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.