Welcome to your quagmire: Coleman lawyer Ginsberg gets standing in court

To paraphrase a fallen Republican icon:

You go into an election with the laws you have—not the laws you might want or wish to have at a later time.

There is no evidence to support a complaint of systemic intent to deny either candidate’s equal protection rights.

Exact parity in election laws across all jurisdictions may well be an impossible standard to acheive. If Republicans try again to use the Supreme Court to manipulate an election, it will backfire, in the words of another fallen Republican icon, “bigtime”.

Reasonable public officials are completing this recount process. I don’t know who the ultimate winner will be but I do know that this is not Florida and the majority of Minnesotans will not tolerate any outcome that is not perceived as just, no matter who the winner is.

To paraphrase a fallen Republican icon:

You go into an election with the laws you have—not the laws you might want or wish to have at a later time.

————–

Ron,

Great post!!!

I’ve been reading Colman McCarthy lately.

This has resulted in the dream that Mr. Ginsberg was a cockroach in my boot, and I was
in a hurry to get saddled up and gone early one morning.

Liberty and democracy were well served by a warm stream of freedom, followed by the
resounding stomp of justice.

1. Intent is not required for a state government to violate the 14th Amendments equal protection.

2. It is unlawful to allow the disparate application of a statue which dilutes or debases the votes of the a voter. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

3. In directing and conducting a review, the state failed to provide or employ uniform standards to guide the vote review process and therefore fails to provide procedural due process because of the failure to establish standards sufficient to guard against the arbitrary and capricious decisions to conduct manual recounts, City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 (1999) (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 35 8 (1983));

4. Dickinson v. Florida, 227 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla. 1969) (“[W]hen statutes delegate power [with] inadequate protection against unfairness or favoritism, and when such protection could easily have been provided, the reviewing court should invalidate the legislation.”).

5. Permitting the use of such standard by not excluding its use or by the failure to establish a consistent standard is arbitrary and capricious. See Murchie v. Clifford, 79 A. 901 (N,H. 191 1).

6. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards the rights of voters to have the valid votes counted. United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385, 388-89 (1944).

Eric,
Where, in which states, and for how long have elections been conducted in such a way that zero risk of Equal Protection has occurred. Please provide details on those models for me if you have them.

A key point which does not seem to be addressed here is the clear distinction between absentee ballots and the right to vote. The former is a privilege, while the latter is absolute.

When a privilege is granted, all reasonable conditions for that privilege must be met.
If any are unmet, the governing authority may use its discretion in whether to grant
that privilege. As long as the use of such discretion is not arbitrary or capricious,
the judiciary must yield to the executive.

If one chooses to cast one’s ballot through the use of a privilege, one has the obligation
of doing so properly. Failure to cast one’s vote properly is then the fault of the voter,
and the consequent risk is borne by the voter, not the collective.

[And to clarify my previous post - the author in question is Cormac McCarthy, who
I believe is one of our greatest living writers. I wish Garrison Keillor would quote
from some of his work in his "Writer's Almanac" show, instead of limiting his quotes
to people who spent their entire lives indoors.(viz. pp 65-67, "The Crossing")]

Ron,

1. I never asserted that any elections have been conducted in such a way that zero risk of Equal Protection [violations] has occurred.

2. If you are looking for answer to a question on a matter I did not address try this: There are no doubt many wrongs in want of a lawsuit for which there is no plaintiff. The number of elections in which the wrong is committed might indeed be astounding. Surely you would not condone a wrong merely due to its prevalence.

3. The truth is a statute neutral and fair on its face can be applied by state and local governments in an unconstitutionally disparate manner. In such an instance, it is not the state statute that’s offensive but rather the state action, particularly when the disparate action debases a fundamental right. This is, of course, why the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled as it did in Baker v. Carr: “ It is unlawful to allow the disparate application of a statue which dilutes or debases the votes of the a voter.” See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

4. The law in Minnesota establishing the canvassing board is neutral on its face. Likewise, neutral on its face is the Minnesota law to be used in the review of each vote i.e., Section 204C.22 DETERMINING VOTER’S INTENT. However, the canvassing board has used vague, subjective, arbitrary, capricious and unequal tests and standards developed on an ad hoc basis which are applied inconsistently. Thus, the canvassing board has not adopted and employed the same standards in application of the law when the ballots are reviewed. As a result, election returns have been reviewed by a standard that utilizes vague, subjective, arbitrary, unequal and capricious tests to determine for whom the voter voted causing the right to vote by ballot, and the candidate’s right to receive a uniform review of votes cast on his behalf, are debased and diluted by this disparate and unequal application of a statute which, on its face, is neutral but has been unconstitutionally applied and administered through state action.

5. The problem with the recent rulings arises from the fact that the Judges have confined their review to the mechanical application of a statute rather than act like any court should and, indeed must. By this I mean, entertain any motion or argument that would otherwise be permissible in any court of law, to include, Equal Protection violations. But, by treating itself as a panel confined to a narrow mission, rather than a full stand up court of law (which may actually be the proper view of its purpose) the matter will be pushed into a US Federal District Court.

6. I submit that if found to be a state action that applied disparate standards, the US Federal District Court will order that (i) both the vote that was not counted and the vote that was counted be discarded or (ii) that a special revote be conducted for each vote to which disparate state standards were applied.

Eric

For every wrong in want of a lawsuit for which there is no plaintiff, there are 10 lawyers looking for a plaintiff for which there is no lawsuit. Most of them are here in Minnesota right now.

I’ve got three phrases for you to contemplate Eric:

States Rights
Local control
Activist Judges

I submit that the voters of Minnesota will never tolerate an election that they perceive as unjust, no matter who wins.

The results of this election will not turn on the clever application of law. No man is above the law and no law is above all men. We employ the people who write the law. The power of the people flows through the constitution to the courts, not the other way around. Vague, subjective, arbitrary, and capricious; you bet Eric. Were dealing with humans here. Malicious is not on that list, nor has it been evident in the actions of the election judges or the canvassing board. This election will be settled by in Minnesota by Minnesotans.

SUPREMES: do your jobs! THROW THE BUMB(s) out & MAKE EM PAY every cent they COST THIS STATE!

Why is this integrity-challenged knee jerk GOP jerk still drawing Minnesota air?

My Good heavens (LAND SAKES! as my dear departed mother used to say)…

WHY DOESN’T OUR revered State Supreme’s DEMAND that COLEMAN & HIS GOP CABAL pay in ADVANCE before his case is EVER HEARD for everything he’s cost us taxpayers with all his shenanigans ? AND FOR

KEEPING our God=fearing duly elected SENATOR from being seated AND REPRESENTING We the People who every elected servant is SUPPOSED TO BE serving)?”

THE SHAM that Coleman cares about all 4000 votes that were rejected FOR improper procedures … DIED A SLOW death long ago. START SANCTIONING THIS self-AND GOP-serving FLUNKY == CONFIRM our duly elected SENATOR — and LET’S BE DONE with this.

Coleman could care LESS about this State –he’s the GOP lap dog –

LET’S SEND them a message that PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA aren’t cow-towing OR STUPID hicks … WE CAN INSURE we never vote REPUBLICAN again.(THAT they will take seriously)