“It is perhaps ironic that the sitting governor could well cast
a vote on his own recall that would not be tallied,” writes the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. More ironic would be the retention
of a governor unable to use a punch card properly.
Nothing is too profound or too petty for the 9th Circuit Court
to declare unconstitutional. From the Pledge of Allegiance to punch
cards, the court sees grave threats to the Constitution. Indeed,
whole countries may lose faith in democracy if punch cards remain
in use. “We would be remiss if we did not observe that this is a
critical time in our nation’s history when we are attempting to
persuade the people of other nations of the value of free and open
elections. Thus, we are especially mindful of the need to
demonstrate our commitment to elections held fairly, free of chaos,
with each citizen assured that his or her vote will be counted, and
with each vote entitled to equal weight. A short postponement of
the election will accomplish those aims and reinforce our national
commitment to democracy.”
Liberal judges are fond of these windy statements — and equally
fond of decisions which subvert them. The 9th Circuit speaks of the
grave need for elections free of chaos, then promptly throws an
election into chaos. It demands every vote be counted, then blocks
the counting of all votes for months.
Federal judges are disenfranchising state voters far more
effectively than punch cards. The 9th Circuit judges don’t mind
nixing the state election laws citizens voted for. Why don’t those
votes count?
The court’s “national commitment to democracy” is more like an
elitist campaign against democracy. Whenever the judicial elite
don’t approve of the people’s laws, they junk them.
Weren’t the Democrats now cheering this decision just telling us
that no votes should be counted? That a recall election shouldn’t
be held? One-man, one-vote liberals, once their interests are
threatened, suddenly become aristocrats fearful of direct
democracy. Bill Clinton, sounding like the patricians he used to
demagogue, says, “I’ll continue to make my case to the people that
a recall is not good for them.”
Liberals believe in one-liberal, one-vote, but other
arrangements leave them worried. The 9th Circuit’s decision is pure
ACLU-style willfulness. Punch cards don’t violate the Constitution,
just liberal wishes. Why? Because they don’t conform to the judges’
egalitarian vision of voting technology. It scandalizes them that
the voters they like are using primitive punch cards when the
voters they dislike are using computer screens.
Here we see how liberals define equality as sameness in every
respect. If a Beverly Hills voter is using a computer and an Oxnard
voter is using a punch card, well, that’s obviously evidence of
“inequality,” according to liberals. But a lack of sameness is not
automatic proof of inequality. Dissimilar things can be of equal
value.
For every “inequality” liberals uproot, two or three far more
real inequalities pop up in its place. The liberal project is
endless because “inequalities” are endless.
Of course only certain inequalities register with them. Notice
this gratuitous aside in the 9th Circuit’s decision: “Plaintiffs
have described [Proposition 54] as ‘racially charged.’ Whether or
not that description is accurate, it is clear that the proposition
is of significant interest to minority voters. As we have noted,
the Plaintiffs have tendered significant evidence that the use of
pre-scored punch card voting systems will disproportionately affect
the minority population of California. Thus, there is a significant
public interest in avoiding disproportionate disenfranchisement of
the population most affected by the proposition.”
Why does the court assume minorities are “the population most
affected by the proposition”? Where is the proof for this?
The 9th Circuit gives itself away with such sophistries. Some
votes are more equal than others for it. Before too long it will be
telling us that a one-minority, two-votes system is
constitutional.
George Neumayr is managing editor of The American
Spectator.
