GOP Weaponizing the Constitution - Federal Seizure Of Elections

[kpete]

Court rules against voters supervising elections, attorney tells Raw Story

Miriam Raftery
Published: Wednesday September 6, 2006

A judge has dismissed a challenge filed to California’s hotly contested 50th Congressional race, in which the House seated Republican Brian Bilbray just 7 days after the election -- before the race was certified and before all votes were counted. RAW STORY has followed the case in earlier reports.

For the controversial ruling, Judge Yuri Hofmann relied on arguments brought by attorneys representing Bilbray and San Diego’s Registrar of Voters to dismiss the case, relying on Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution to find that only the House of Representatives has jurisdiction over its members' races.

Now a Nevada court has extended House powers even further, ruling on Friday that citizens and courts have no power to object in a Republican primary election – even though neither candidate is an incumbent currently serving in Congress.

In an exclusive interview with RAW STORY, Paul Lehto, attorney for the voters who filed the CA-50 challenge, reveals why he believes this is a dangerous trend that could be used by legislators to seize and keep power in other races nationwide – starting with the race to fill Tom DeLay’s Congressional seat.

Attorney Paul Lehto does NOT agree that there is nothing anyone can do. Rather, He thinks that the GOP strategy here of weaponizing the Constitution can only be successful if we both accept its legitimacy and genuflect to it based on a sense of powerlessness. The motions to dismiss election contests raised by the GOP defendants in CA and NV and perhaps soon in TX are just the latest species of election nullification, election fraud being another example of election nullification. Only now, the election nullification is out in the open, it is intentional, it is signed by their lawyers, and it can’t be denied. They want to end inquiry into elections by anyone other than the House and Senate themselves IN THE WORST WAY.

..........................

Snippets from interview

In the wake of these two recent court rulings, Lehto comments on their wider implications in an interview with Raw Story's Miriam Raftery:

Q: What happened in Nevada?

A: A Congressional election contest in Nevada's second Congressional district was dismissed on Friday on the same Constitutional jurisdictional grounds in the Republican primary. So even though Article I, section 5 refers to the house judging the qualification of its members, nobody in this primary is a member. It's an open seat, but the judge bought that argument.

Q: How far might this be carried? What could do next?

A: The next thing is they would look at a Democratic Party and maybe Speaker Hastert or the House could decide that they have a certain position, and what if the Senate decides we're the sole judge of our members? Now that they've taken the absurd step of overturning a primary, the next step is for them to say we support Lieberman, not Lamont.


.............................

Q: What are the most important lessons learned from this case?

A: On the broadest level it’s very obvious that there are people who want to prematurely terminate elections and eliminate the public’s right of access to information about those elections. The case also stands for the fact that California's one-percent audit ends up being useless at best, and recount rights are useless when they are priced too high. And if you have ballot box stuffing, the recount will appear to validate the fraudulent results. If you are evaluating legislation concerning elections, keep in mind that any safeguards or checks and balances that you put in the process that occur after any initial results are reported are reduced in value by something like ninety percent, because you may never get there. As soon as you announce initial results of an early winner or loser, election officials start stonewalling anyone’s results to prove otherwise. You need front-end loading: If you want audits, have them occur before the results are reported.

MUCH MORE AT:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Court_rules_against_v...

[Trillo]

1. Another excerpt

emphasis added:

A: You can’t cite this case because it is not precedent; because to be precedent it needs to be a published decision. It can’t be published because trial courts in state courts are never published. …A few in federal court are. This case cannot possibly become published unless we appeal – that’s why you want to be sure that if you appeal, you are going to do a great job on it – and you can’t really do a good job on it on a part-time pro bono basis unless you are independently wealthy. You need to work around the clock.
read more...

I was just thinking about how the reality behind the bolded statement has enabled some wealthy corporations over citizens.

[kpete]

2. People need to know

This is not just about California - This could lead to the "Federal Seizure" of State Races in Nevada, Texas and beyond...

[Land Shark]

5. Good point, I wanted to explain more about how no one gets legal

representation (normally) unless a wealthy person is at their side and their "partner" in the action. Public defenders (govt partner), contingent fee trial lawyers (often wealthy), most real people including many lawyers can not afford a hourly lawyer fee, etc. The exceptions to the rule of hourly fees are the ones under political attack: class actions and contingency fee lawyers.

It will cost a lot of money to do this appeal. It's not going to be a profitable job, just an important one. It still surprises me after a decade in law how expensive it is to practice. you'd think it was no more expensive than giving informal free advice in a bar, but....

[rumpel]

9. tell me about it

been there and still in it ... on many fronts

[Land Shark]

10. Not rich? No rights! (it's a wonder no one has campaigned on that)

[me b zola]

3. Scary stuff

Thanks for posting the story, kpete.

[Land Shark]

4. They are stretching the law past the breaking point

but in any event, the law in the area of elections is not to be applied or used to terminate elections, nullify them, prevent their investigation, or otherwise hide the truth or frustrate the truth seeking processes of courts, public records requests, or anything else.

Democracy is where the people are in charge,and the source of "all legitimate political power" as the Declaration of Independence suggests. Where they are not, it's not a democracy.

[annabanana]

6. It is treason.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the governed do not consent and cannot be shown to consent, there is no "just power".


period.

[Land Shark]

7. interesting point

[kpete]

8. original link seems to be broken

link to interview:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Court_rules_against_votersupervised_elections_attorney_0906.html

[GuvWurld]

11. Very important article.

K&R

[bbgrunt]

12. yikes!! We see the dems united against disney and ABC, so

where is their leadership here? Oh, I forgot. They were keeping their powder dry while the courts were being packed.

k and r