Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

.
This section traditionally contains, inter alia, the monthly Short Quiz(zes) and Suggested Answers.

As explained at the beginning of this month’s Short Quiz posted in this section, its Questions are based on an EXPIRED 12/16/2020 Topic Proposal prompted by the NYC Harvard Club’s impending 12/22/2020 Zoom webinar entitled “How To Strengthen and Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election” and featuring the nation’s foremost election-law expert, Prof. Richard H. Pildes of NYU School of Law (JD, Harvard Law School, 1983).

The reason for mentioning this here is that the 12/16/2020 Topic Proposal contained available for download three Adobe.pdf files that would, if the 12/16/2020 Topic Proposal had been accepted, have been posted in “Reference Materials” rather than “Participant Comments.”

That reason, explained (though it “beats around the bush” a bit) --

********************
THE 2005 FORMER-PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER AND FORMER SECRETARY-OF-STATE JAMES BAKER COMMISSION ON FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM

In the wake of the 2000 election litigation involving THREE U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the voting for President in Florida, the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election reform featured among its 21 members such luminaries as Lee Hamilton (Co-Chair of The 9/11 Commission) and former Senate-Democrat Leader Tom Daschle.

The Commission issued a report with 87 recommendations.

The report was approved by a vote of 20-1.

The sole dissenter was a George Washington U. Law Professor whose views were eventually embodied in a “Response to the Report of the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform” authored by three “Associate Counsel” at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and by the George Washington U. Law Professor himself.

The “Response to the Report” focused primarily on “Photo ID’s” which the Commission had recommended be provided FREE for non-drivers.

Needless to say, nothing was done about Federal Election Reform.

*****
The foregoing information about the 2005 Commission is quoted from the aforementioned “Expired Proposed Topic: How To Secure Federal Elections Post-2020.”

Its Part B is entitled “The U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘How To Steal An Election’ Manual and is available at viewtopic.php?f=150&t=2006&p=2730&hilit ... d6ac#p2730.

The Sec. 5 of Part B (which, like Part B itself, is also entitled “The U.S. Supreme Court ‘How To Steal An Election’ Manual”) comprises the foregoing quotation and the beginning of its sixth section contains THREE REFERENCE MATERIALS available for download as Adobe.pdf files --

(1) The Sep 2005 Press Release of the Commission On Federal Tax Reform.

(2) The 113-page Report of the Commission.

(3) The 33-page Response to the Commission’s Report.
.
Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2061
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

Post by johnkarls »

.
Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz – How To Secure Presidential Elections Post-2020


Sec. 3 of this website contains the Topic Proposals of our 196 members.

It also contains EXPIRED Topic Proposals that contain a wealth of information worth preserving.

As can be seen from the Sec. 3 array (viewforum.php?f=150&sid=b141478ebdb3c7e ... 993463c154), the at-the-moment first EXPIRED proposal (dated 12/16/2020) is entitled “EXPIRED: How To Secure Presidential Elections Post-2020.”

It was prompted by the impending NYC Harvard Club’s 12/22/2020 Zoom webinar entitled “How To Strengthen and Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election” and featuring the nation’s foremost election-law expert, Prof. Richard H. Pildes of NYU School of Law (JD, Harvard Law School, 1983).

The following questions are drawn from the wealth of information contained in that proposal.

The questions will be divided into sections mirroring those of the Expired Topic Proposal --


********************
Part A – Proposal: How To Secure Presidential Elections Post-2020

Question 1

Was the 12/22/2020 Zoom webinar with Prof. Pildes typical of NYC Harvard Club webinars which have numbered more than a dozen/week during the COVID pandemic?

Answer 1

Yes, except in one respect (please see Q&A-2).

Question 2

Was the Pildes Zoom webinar atypical because it was announced with only 6 days’ notice?

Answer 2

Six days’ notice is probably a speed record!!!

Which was probably due to a combination of the importance of the issue and the Prof. Pildes’ 12/10/2020 N.Y. Times OpEd referenced in Q&A-1 & Q&A-2 of Sec. B-2 below.

Question 3

Did Yours Truly post the announcement immediately in a Proposed Topic in Sec. 3 of our website? Did he invite each of our then-191 members to be his guest-participants in the webinar whose format is typically a 30-minute presentation followed by 30 minutes of Q&A?

Answer 3

Yes and Yes.

Question 4

Did the webinar fill up before any of our members responded? Did our members respond too late from four states? Did a considerable number of members respond from each of two of those states?

Answer 4

Yes and Yes and Yes.

Question 5

Does the NYC Harvard Club make recordings of its Zoom webinars which are then available on-line for 48 hours for Club members?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Did Yours Truly make arrangements for each of our RL members to see/hear the Zoom recording? Was their only disadvantage an inability to submit questions?

Answer 6

Yes and Yes.


********************
Part B – The U.S. Supreme Court’s “How To Steal An Election” Manual

**********
Sec. B-1 – Initial Caveats

Question 1

Before any substantive comments, did the Topic Proposal posit that Reading Liberally - Salt Lake is a non-partisan public-policy study-action group?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

And that, accordingly, RL-SL views “How To Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election” (the topic of Prof. Pildes’ webinar) solely from a public-policy perspective?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

And that any conclusions reached by RL-SL should be sound public policy that will be appropriate for future elections regardless of “whether the shoe is on the other foot” or “whose ox is being gored”???!!!

Answer 3

Yes.


**********
Sec. B-2 – Prof. Pildes’ Webinar

Question 1

Before the 12/22/2020 webinar, had Prof. Pildes published in the NY Times on 12/10/2020 an OpEd entitled “There’s Still a Loaded Weapon Lying Around in Our Election System: State legislatures are still a threat to appoint electors contrary to the will of their voters”? [Pease see www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/opinion/stat ... sults.html.]

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

During the Q&A period of the 12/22/2020 webinar, did Yours Truly ask Prof. Pildes (Q’s are submitted in writing through Zoom’s Q&A portal) --

“Why did your OpEd in the New York Times on Dec 10 entitled ‘There’s a Loaded Weapon Lying Around in Our Election System’ focus solely on the STATUTORY authority for -- QUOTE the prospect of legislatures directly appointing a state’s electors and overriding the vote of the people in that state END QUOTE -- when you knew that such authority is embedded in Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court the day after your OpEd article in the Texas vs. Pennsylvania et al. case which the Supreme Court dismissed FOR LACK OF STANDING AND NOT, REPEAT NOT, FOR ANY LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER BY STATE LEGISLATURES TO CHOOSE ELECTORS IN ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT? In other words, isn’t an amendment to Article II of the Constitution required to accomplish your objective of prohibiting state legislatures from ignoring state election results in selecting Presidential Electors?”

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Does Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution state --

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Did Prof. Pildes respond by claiming that each state legislature only “gets one bite at the apple” and once it decides to hold an election for Presidential Electors, it has no further voice in the matter???!!! And that, by implication, even if the specifications that the legislature has prescribed for such an election are violated, the legislature has no recourse whatsoever???!!!

Answer 4

Yes and Yes.

Question 5

FIRST, did Prof. Pildes’ claim have any support in case law interpreting Article II Sec 1 Clause 2 of the Constitution??? Indeed, did any of the four defendants (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin or Georgia) make such a claim in their Briefs opposing Texas that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Dec 11 referenced in my question???

Answer 5

No and No!!!

Question 6

ACCORDINGLY, would Prof. Pildes’ claim merely be his argument when the issue finally reaches the U.S. Supreme Court again, if it ever does – and he is representing the defendants?

Answer 6

Obviously!!!

Question 7

SECOND, should Prof. Pildes’ claim fall apart under questioning from the U.S. Supreme Court justices – for example --

“Suppose Prof. Pildes, that a state legislature has decided to hold elections for Presidential Electors vis-à-vis which the legislature has prescribed, inter alia, that there should be at least one “drop-off box” in each precinct AND THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE THEN DECREES AS A PARTICULAR ELECTION GETS UNDERWAY THAT THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE “DROP-OFF BOX” FOR THE ENTIRE STATE AND IT WILL BE LOCATED AT THE TOP OF A 12,000-FOOT MOUNTAIN PEAK ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY WELL-CONDITIONED HIKERS?” [Please pardon the all-caps emphasis which was provided in the materials for our members who viewed the NYC Harvard Club Zoom video of the webinar.]

NB: Law School 101 teaches that any claim MUST BE TESTED with hypothetical questions THAT TAKE THE CLAIMED PRINCIPLE TO ITS EXTREME to test its validity.

Answer 7

Absolutely Prof. Pildes’ claim should fall apart!!!

Question 8

In his other comments during the webinar, did Prof. Pildes FALSELY CLAIM several times that the U.S. Supreme Court refusal on 12/11/2020 to hear Texas vs. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- in which 18 additional states had joined as plaintiffs -- was unanimous? Were there in fact two dissenters? [Please see www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders ... r_p860.pdf.]

Answer 8

Yes and Yes.

Question 9

BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, did Prof. Pildes constantly FALSELY CLAIM that the failure of all the litigation contesting the election results “proved” that there had been no fraud, or at least insufficient fraud to overturn the result?

Answer 9

The complaint and brief by the State of Texas in the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the Dec 11 decision, alleged illegalities in each of the four defendant states and alleged that the number of votes affected by the illegalities in the case of each of the defendant states was more than sufficient to have produced the wrong result.

ACCORDINGLY, by dismissing Texas’ lawsuit for lack of standing (claiming that Texas had no right to complain even if all the allegations were true), the U.S. Supreme Court never reached the issue of whether there had been fraud and whether any such fraud had been sufficient to overturn the overall election result.

Even if Prof. Pildes was referring to the 60 or so state-court cases brought by a variety of plaintiffs, most (if not virtually all) of the cases were decided on procedural grounds such as being brought too early (“not ripe” in legalese), being brought too late (“laches” in legalese), being moot (the alleged improprieties in the particular lawsuit not being sufficient to overturn the entire national election), or lack of standing (no right for the particular plaintiff to complain).

In essence, Prof. Pildes argues that since it has not been proved in any court that wide-spread fraud occurred OR, using his words, the election “was stolen,” then there was no wide-spread fraud and the election was not “stolen.”

Why is this misleading???

Even if a handful of the 60 or so lawsuits reached the merits and found that the fraud alleged in that handful did not occur???

Re the latter question, a finding that the particular fraud alleged in a particular lawsuit did not occur does NOT prove that no fraud of any kind occurred anywhere. Whether any fraud of any kind occurred anywhere was NOT the issue being addressed in any of those cases.

Re the former question, the claim that there has been no widespread fraud and the election was not stolen depends on a logical fallacy – A FAILURE/INABILITY TO PROVE SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS UNTRUE!!!

The issue is most clearly dramatized in the context of criminal law where “guilt” must be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt”!!!

Does an acquittal mean the defendant was innocent???

Absolutely not!!!

An acquittal ONLY means guilt could not be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt”!!!

And taking the issue back to the case(s) at hand and examining the PROOF from a NON-PARTISAN PUBLIC-POLICY perspective, who knows what happened in inner-city precincts after the legally-required-by-the-legislature partisan observers were ejected before all the ballots were counted???

Just to take one example of how rules established by legislatures were intentionally violated!!!

NB that if “the burden of proof” were shifted to the state officials certifying the election results to demonstrate (even if only “by a preponderance of the evidence”) that FRAUD did NOT occur under such circumstances OR THAT SUCH POSSIBLE FRAUD was not sufficiently large to alter the outcome, we would be faced with a “much different kettle of fish.”


**********
Sec. B-3 – The U.S. Supreme Court’s “How To Steal An Election” Manual

Question 1

Did the U.S. Supreme Court base its 12/11/2020 decision NOT to hear Texas vs. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- in which 18 additional states had joined as plaintiffs -- on the RIDICULOUS GROUNDS of “lack of standing”?

Answer 1

AMAZINGLY YES!!!

Question 2

Did the Complaint filed by Texas offer to prove that ILLEGALITIES had resulted in STOLEN ELECTIONS in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Does Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provide that lawsuits between two or more states are within THE ORIGINAL JURISICTION of the U.S. Supreme Court? In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court acts as a trial court in such cases?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Accordingly, did the U.S. Supreme Court have the Constitutional power to refuse to hear the lawsuit?

Answer 4

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

The two-Justice dissent in the Texas lawsuit cryptically cited Arizona vs. California, 589 U.S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) in which the same two Justices dissented.

The action of the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona vs. California is available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... g_3e04.pdf.

After a single solitary sentence indicating the Court was REFUSING TO PERFORM ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY WITH NO EXPLANATION WHY IT WAS REFUSING, the two-Justice dissent comprises six well-reasoned paragraphs explaining why the action of the majority means that, instead of states being able to sue each other in the U.S. Supreme Court as prescribed in the Constitution, states can NOT sue each other ANYWHERE!!!

[Reading Liberally Editorial Note – Respectable law schools teach that U.S. Supreme Court CHIEF JUSTICE John Marshall (who served 1801-1835 and is cited in the third paragraph of the dissent) was probably the nation’s only Chief Justice to whose opinions everyone should bow!!!]

Question 5

Did those rascals on the Supreme Court reject the case on the grounds that Texas and 18 other states have no right to complain (i.e., “lack standing”) about being saddled for 4 years with a U.S. President WHOSE ELECTION WAS STOLEN by four other states???!!!

Answer 5

INCREDIBLY!!!

At least the seven-Justice majority DID NOT HAVE THE GALL to claim (as they had in Arizona vs. Colorado -- please see the preceding Q&A-4), that states CAN NEVER sue each other.

But they DID HAVE THE GALL to claim that Texas and 18 other states have no right to complain (i.e., “lack standing”) about being saddled for 4 years with a U.S. President WHOSE ELECTION WAS STOLEN by four other states!!!

THAT FATUOUS CLAIM DOES NOT SURVIVE “THE LAUGH TEST”!!!

Question 6

Did the “Prayers for Relief” sought by the State of Texas include U.S. Supreme Court declarations that the Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin 2020 presidential elections violated the Constitution, that their unconstitutional elections cannot be used for appointing Electors, and that each of the four states would be authorized to conduct remedial elections? Could this have been accomplished before the scheduled 1/20/2021 Inauguration Day?

Answer 6

Yes and Yes.

Question 7

Was Pennsylvania entitled to 20 Electors, Georgia to 16, Michigan to 16 and Wisconsin to 10?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

And with the impending 306-232 vote, a switch of 37 votes would have changed the outcome in President Trump’s favor?

Answer 8

Yes.

Question 9

So that if the U.S. Supreme Court had ordered remedial elections in all 4 states, President Trump would only have needed to win 3?

Answer 9

Yes.

Question 10

Did Yours Truly employ the Law School 101 principle of taking a principle to its extreme to test its validity, to test the U.S. Supreme Court’s BRAZEN REFUSAL TO PERFORM ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF HEARING LAWSUITS BETWEEN STATES with the following hypothetical question?

**********Law School 101 Hypothetical**********
Consider the following Law School 101 hypothetical which I could easily have posed while teaching for NYU School of Law if my topic had been election law rather than international tax law –

Right-wing groups had been appearing for a year prior to the election in several so-called “swing states.”

The right-wing groups created “autonomous zones” in those “swing states” and were able to intimidate the Mayors and Governors of those “swing states” to take no action.

The right-wing groups caused extensive property damage in those “autonomous zones.”

The right-wing groups also caused a considerable loss of liberty (including some loss of life) for residents who lived in, or owned businesses located in, the “autonomous zones.”

The members of the right-wing groups proudly wore “brown shirts” and relished greeting each other by clicking their heels together while standing tall and raising their right hands while exclaiming to each other either “Sieg Heil” or “Hail Victory.”

The right-wing groups stole a considerable quantity of “mail-in ballots” in each of the “swing states” (and I’d be delighted to make alternative assumptions on whether the ballots were stolen from the manufacturer, from the election officials, etc., and whether the thefts were “inside jobs”).

Since the ballot counting cannot be completed in the “swing states” on election night because “mail in” ballots will be accepted for another few days, all of the precincts close down for the first night.

With a “good fix” from election-night returns re how many fraudulent ballots will be needed to swing the election in each swing state (with a safety margin) and what the voter turnout was in each precinct (providing a “good fix” on how many fraudulent ballots can be added in particular precincts to “steal” the election), the right-wing groups enter enough precinct counting facilities and process enough fraudulent ballots to swing the election in each swing state.

I’d be delighted to make alternative assumptions for this Law School 101 hypothetical example regarding whether the entry of the right-wing groups was “an inside job.”

In this regard, please remember that in 2020 there were numerous reports, including affidavits and video evidence, of election observers being ejected and windows being papered to prevent observation – both actions taken by election officials!!!

And LO AND BEHOLD!!! In my hypothetical election that takes place in the future and features these facts, THE RIGHT-WING CANDIDATE IS ELECTED PRESIDENT!!!

**********End of Law School 101 Hypothetical**********


Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

Did my Law School 101 Hypothetical end with – “If you think my hypothetical is far-fetched, please explain in your Law School 101 Final Exam Answer why you think that now that all the “players” know “anything goes,” nobody will take advantage of the situation”???

Answer 11

Yes.

Question 12

Should my Law School 101 Hypothetical have included an additional “fact” – viz., that just like Hitler burned down on 2/27/1933 the Reichstag (the German Parliament Building), future history textbooks will record that, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 “How To Steal An Election Manual,” the STOLEN ELECTION described in my Law School 101 Hypothetical is the LAST ELECTION AMERICA EVER HAD???!!!

Answer 12

Absolutely!!!


**********
Sec. B-4 – The 2005 Former-President Jimmy Carter and Former Secretary-of-State James Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform
Sec. B-5 – Proposed Reading Materials


Question 1

In the wake of the 2000 election litigation involving THREE U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the voting for President in Florida, did the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election reform featured among its 21 members such luminaries as Lee Hamilton (Co-Chair of The 9/11 Commission) and former Senate-Democrat Leader Tom Daschle?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Did the Commission issue a report with 87 recommendations?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Was the report approved by a vote of 20-1?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Was the sole dissenter a George Washington U. Law Professor whose views were eventually embodied in a “Response to the Report of the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform”?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

Did the “Response to the Report” focus primarily on “Photo ID’s” which the Commission had recommended be provided FREE for non-drivers?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Did the Proposed Reading Materials for the EXPIRED 12/16/2020 Topic Proposal of “How to Secure Presidential Elections Post-2020” comprise –

The 2-page Press Release of the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform,
The 113-page Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, and
The 33-page Response to the Report?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

Are these three documents available for download as Adobe.pdf files at Part B of the EXPIRED 12/16/2020 topic proposal at viewtopic.php?f=150&t=2006&p=2730&hilit ... ee80#p2730 and scrolling down to its Part 5 entitled “Proposed Reading Materials”?

Answer 7

Yes.


********************
Part C – Establishing a [Reading Liberally – Salt Lake] Working Group for Election Reform?

Question 1

Does Reading Liberally – Salt Lake establish Working Groups (as described in Sec. 8 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org) to address public-policy issues that may require immediate action on the spur of the moment (rendering addressing it at the next regular monthly meeting impractical), and/or (2) that may require long-term attention?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Did it appear, at least on 12/28/2020, that “long-term attention” was NOT needed in the form of a Working Group – since the Supreme Court had already rejected the Texas lawsuit on 12/11/2020?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Did it also appear that no “immediate action” was needed vis-à-vis “Jan 6” as of 12/28/2020?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Was this because the votes of the Electors in the Electoral College had been certified and transmitted as required to the President of the Senate (i.e., U.S. Vice President Mike Pence) who would open them on January 6 in a joint session of Congress?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

And accordingly, the only remaining action to be taken was for the President of the Senate to read the Elector votes state-by-state?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Whereupon each state’s votes would be accepted immediately unless at least one Senator and at least one Representative objected?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

In such a case, does each chamber immediately meet separately and, after an opportunity for discussion/debate, vote on whether to accept or reject that state’s Elector votes?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

With the result that such a state’s Elector votes will be accepted unless BOTH chambers of Congress vote to reject them?

Answer 8

Yes.

Question 9

And was it our judgment that since the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives again in the new Congress, there was NO CHANCE as a practical matter that the 306-232 vote of the Electors which had already taken place would be changed?

Answer 9

Yes.


********************
Part D – The Juvenile Reaction of Congress
Part E – Re: The Juvenile Reaction of Congress

These two sections relate to the “Jan 6” events at the nation’s Capitol.

Accordingly, they have nothing to do with our Feb 16 meeting’s topic of “NYC Harvard Club Book Promotion – ‘Our Broken Elections: How the Left Changed the Way You Vote.’”

However, anyone interested in these two parts of the EXPIRED 12/16/2020 Topic Proposal can find its Part D at viewtopic.php?f=150&t=2006&p=2741&hilit ... 577e#p2741 and its Part E at viewtopic.php?f=150&t=2006&p=2742&hilit ... 577e#p2742.


********************
Part F – Ariz Atty Gen & Ariz Republican Party in US Supreme Court

Question 1

Brnovich [Ariz Atty Gen] vs. Democratic National Committee

Per the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (request for the Supreme Court to take the case) in Brnovich vs. DNC (the entire Cert Petition is available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... -1257.html), the “Questions Presented For Review” are –

“Arizona, like every other State, has adopted rules to promote the order and integrity of its elections. At issue are two such provisions: an “out-of-precinct policy,” which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, and a “ballot-collection law,” known as H.B. 2023, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and election officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. A majority of States require in-precinct voting, and about twenty States limit ballot collection. After a ten-day trial, the district court upheld these provisions against claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment. A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. At the en banc stage, however, the Ninth Circuit reversed – against the urging of the United States and over two vigorous dissents joined by four judges. The questions presented are:

(1) Does Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

(2) Does Arizona’s ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment?”


Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Arizona Republican Party vs. Democratic National Committee

Per the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (request for the Supreme Court to take the case) in Arizona Republican Party vs. DNC (the entire Cert Petition is available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... -1258.html), the “Questions Presented For Review” are –

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that “result [ ] in denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen… to vote on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). Such a discriminatory “result” occurs if an election is not “equally open to participation” by racial minorities, giving them “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Id. § 10301(b). Arizona gives all citizens an opportunity to vote in person or by mail, and authorizes ballots to be turned in by a family member, household member, or caregiver. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit held that Arizona violated § 2 by (1) requiring in-person voters to cast ballots in their assigned precincts; and (2) prohibiting “ballot harvesting,” i.e., third-party collection and return of ballots. The court held that because racial minorities disproportionately vote out-of-precinct and use ballot-harvesting, the Act compels the State to allow those practices. The questions presented are:

(1) Whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to authorize any voting practice that would be used disproportionately by racial minorities, even if existing voting procedures are race-neutral and offer all voters an equal opportunity to vote.

(2) Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that Arizona’s ballot-harvesting prohibition was tainted by discriminatory intent even though the legislators were admittedly driven by partisan interests and by supposedly “unfounded” concerns about voter fraud.


Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

In Part F of our EXPIRED 12/16/2020 Topic Proposal, did our “Caveats and Observations” say --

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states –

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

The question of whether the 2020 Presidential Election was “stolen” is determined, according to the U.S. Constitution, by whether each State followed the rules specified by that State’s Legislature. [Though, of course, if a State’s Legislature prescribed rules that violated the U.S. Constitution by, for example, selecting Electoral College Electors by popular election in which African-American citizens were barred from voting, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL provisions of a Legislature would be invalid.] Accordingly, for PRESIDENTIAL elections, any decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in either Brnovich or Arizona Republican Party ARE IRRELEVANT except (according to the “Questions Presented” in their respective Cert Petitions) vis-à-vis a particular point in an opinion that turned on the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, if the Arizona Legislature had specified an election rule that violated ONLY the Voting Rights Act BUT NOT the Constitution, that rule would be valid for Presidential elections.

This distinction may seem ephemeral because the reader may find it difficult to imagine an election provision that violated the Voting Rights Act without violating the Fifteenth Amendment (“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”). So a couple of examples –

(1) Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution does NOT require a State Legislature to even hold an election to select that State’s Electoral College Electors.

(2) Note that the Fifteenth Amendment is limited by its terms to “the right of CITIZENS” (emphasis added) and various state-court and lower-federal-court decisions have permitted NON-CITIZENS to vote in certain elections. Accordingly (NB: this is the kind of hypothetical issue that is utilized to get law students TO THINK), suppose a State Legislature did decide to hold elections to select that State’s Electoral College Electors and, IN ADDITION, specified that SOME BUT NOT ALL non-citizens could participate with the NON-CITIZEN criteria based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”!!! Technically, the Fifteenth Amendment does NOT apply!!!


Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Accordingly, did the U.S. Supreme Court’s willingness to hear two OBSCURE IRRELEVANT lawsuits atone for its BRAZEN FLOUTING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION’S REQUIREMENT for them to hear the Texas lawsuit’s contention that the 2020 Election had been stolen and what should be done about that in terms of immediate remedial actions in four states?

Answer 4

Absolutely NOT!!!

Question 5

Therefore, did our EXPIRED 12/16/2020 Topic Proposal NOT bother to follow those cases to their 7/1/2021 denouments?

Answer 5

No, it did NOT bother to follow them.

Question 6

BTW, did the Supreme Court on 7/1/2021 decide for the Ariz Atty Gen that outlawing “ballot harvesting” and outlawing “out-of-precinct voting” did NOT violate either the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

And also BTW, did the Supreme Court on 7/1/2021 decide for the Ariz Republican Party that “ballot harvesting” can be made illegal by a state legislature?

Answer 7

Yes.


********************
New Question for Extra Credit –

Will we ever know for certain (since the U.S. Supreme Court rejected ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, the lawsuit by Texas and 18 other states against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania) whether the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen???

Answer

Unfortunately, we will never know.

SHAME ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!!!

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments – NYC Harvard Club Book Promotion - “Our Broken Elections: How the Left Changed the Way You Vote” – Feb 16”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest