Goin' All Columbo...

Remember how near the end of the show Columbo would be about to leave, and then he'd turn around and say, "Just one more thing..." and then ask a pretty hard question.

I don't know if this is a hard thing or not.  But I sure don't know the answer.  So, "Just one more thing" for NC's Moral Monday warriors.

The Moral Monday folks have been going nuts that the NCGA has required people to get an ID to be able to vote.  Now, other states (including NY, where the NY Times lives, and the Times has been criticizing NC, which I ALSO don't understand) already have requirements like that.  Because they are worried about vote fraud. In fact, the ID requirements in NY are MORE stringent than the NC ID requirements.  But NC is somehow acting badly, and NY is a liberal bastion.  I don't understand that.  No fewer than 34 states have ID laws, but NC is acting badly.

But that's not the strangest thing.  The strangest thing is Ventra.  Look at the requirements to ride a BUS....we're not talking about a game, not talkin' about a game, we're talking about a BUS, just to ride a BUS, you have to go through all this crap and give all this information.  If poor people can't get an ID because it is too much of a burden, how dare Chicago impose this kind of burden just to ride the bus.

Now, I would have thought that poor people are more likely to ride the bus than wealthy people, who have cars or take cabs.  Where are the Moral Monday folks in Chicago?  Could it be because the city is owned by the Democrats?  Could it be because the "outrage" by the Moral Monday folks is pure political posturing?  Could it be that they don't actually care at all about the poor, or the outrageous burden that is being placed on people just to ride the bus, in Chicago?

So, just that one more thing.

(This post dedicated to my friend Bruce C., and his NYTimes subscription, which he values more than life itself).

NOTA! Bene....

Libertarians have long advocated putting "NOTA" in as an option in all elections.  (And we practice it!) (Of course, sometimes this happens)

India has just decided that that makes a lot of sense.  The parties should have to nominate someone YOU want, not just people THEY want.

Schulze Method Voting

Description of Schulze Method

An implementation

Nod to Gordon F.

An Obvious Solution

I'm missing something about the SCOTUS decision yesterday, on VRA.

The court (rightly) struck down the portion of the VRA that maintained restrictions that fall differently on different states.  And those differences demonstrably have no basis in actual misbehavior, or in fact any empirical data at all.

Yes, I understand the 15th Amendment says that Congress "shall have the power to enforce..."  But it's with "APPROPRIATE legislation."  The VRA as redone is not appropriate, and in fact it's clearly unconstitutional, for the reasons the court gave yesterday.  Two biggies:

1.  The 10th Amendment reminds us that certain rights belong to the states.
2.  The Constitution says, in Article I, Section 4, that the "time, place, and manner" of elections will be left up to the state legislatures.  Yes, it goes on to say that Congress can pass laws, like the one that coordinated Presidential elections, but that goes for all the states.  The Congress can't pick and choose, to say "We like this state, we don't like this state," without violating the 10th Amendment.  There has to be a reason.  A good reason.  A reason good enough to pass what judges call strict scrutiny.

So far, so good.  The court did the right thing.  But then they did something bizarre.  If you are going to say that Congress has to redo the section on deciding which states have to get pre-clearance to impose new restrictions or new rules, why in the name of sweet fancy Moses would you say "no states"?  They could have said, "Given the stakes, the current rules stay in place for a year, so Congress can change it."

But the obvious answer is this:  Congress can absolutely pass a law that says ALL states must pre-clear.  They passed a law that made unacceptable and unfounded differences in burden, so we'll strike that part down.  Then the SCOTUS should have said, "Until or unless Congress passes a new version of this section, all states have to pre-clear."  There is nothing unconstitutional about THAT.  The problem is the different burdens on different states.

The advantage of this is that, as a practical matter, the status quo is going to be privileged.  Saying that "No states have to pre-clear, but Congress can fix that", sounds fine, in theory.  But Congress can't find its own...well, knee with both hands right now.  The SCOTUS has set up a bitter and dangerous fight.  Go the other way:  make the status quo ALL states have to pre-clear.  Then, if Congress does nothing there is still a protection against state abuse by majorities.  And Congress is much more likely to do something, because there might be bi-partisan support in a majority of states to pass a new and more sensible law.

UPDATE:  Commenter notes "SCOTUS can't do that."  I should have been more careful.  SCOTUS cannot impose a new law.  But it is absolutely common either to stay the impact of a decision, or to impose by judicial order a reversion point when the elimination of the law itself would impose a harm worse than the harm being corrected.  So I am only proposing that the SCOTUS do this by judicial order, with a fuse.

If you read the VRA, and look at Section 4,  you'll see that the law says "(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a state which..."  It's the part after the "which" that was struck down.  So, the question is how to interpret that?  If you get rid of the part that describes the conditions, do you go to ALL states, or NO states?  You have to choose.  It's not obvious that NO states is required of the court.  They can say that by striking down the conditions on application of pre-clearance, that ALL states have to preclear, until Congress fixes the law.  That sort of thing happens all the time in election law.

So, commenter, your point is well taken, given what I wrote originally.  But I didn't mean "change the law."  I meant "change the temporary reversion point, by judicial order.

The Problem is NOT That This is Fraud

I'm with Fundman.  The problem is NOT that this is fraud.

The problem is that it's probably an accurate reflection of how people voted.

Wow.

Early Voting

Article in the NY Daily News about early voting in NC.  Reporter was kind enough to give me a call.

It is interesting to think about how early voting changes things.  Dems have better organization, Reps have better cash on hand.  Early voting has the effect of allowing organization to win.

Why?  Because (1) you can just pester people on the street:  Get on the bus!  Get on the bus!  Vote for us!  Vote for us! (2) people who vote early won't hear the ads in the last two weeks, paid for by the Rep money.

A number of people told me, in 2008, they regretted their votes.  Bev Perdue ran some remarkably racist ads at the very end.  The campaign knew that by then it was too late for the sensible people to take their votes back, and so Bev was free to appeal solely to the wack jobs who were still undecided.

Theories of Voting

Jim Bob notes that if other people vote, it makes little sense to vote. But what if everyone thought that way? (1) They don't. (2) If they did, then I'd vote. But then so would they.


Corporate Avenger's view: Voting doesn't work.
NSFW!

In Counting There Is Strength

Cool. The Dems still control the state apparatus here in NC, and they are going to try to steal the Ethridge seat. And who's to stop them? After all, in counting there is strength...
(Click for more bodacious image)
It will be Al Franken "winning" Wisconsin in 2008 all over again.

Do Three Rights Make a Left?

KPC friend Shirley R writes from cold Rhode Island, on voting day:

Well up and dressed. waiting for more light to go on my way to vote. Middle school, 3 rights to get there and a right to get home. Made for me.

Um...what? Then I remembered: Shirley does NOT like to turn left.

Fortunately, the "three rights" maneuver, going the long way around the block, got her safely to the voting place. Thirty minutes later, this update:

That was easy and quick. All rights get me there and home... It was [quite] cold!

Get out there and vote, people, or else get out there and gloat about NOT voting! Either way, it's a big day...

KPC Classics

Haven't posted on the "Classics" meme for a while.

But here is one from early November, 2004, before the election. Who could forget "Votergasm"? (I had, but not anymore) (Parts are not work safe, btw)

Voting on How to Vote

The Brits are thinking of ending their FPTP voting system.

Perhaps the experience of the Liberal Democrats is the reason.

(nod to THE Chelsea)