“Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.” So proclaimed Founding Father John Jay, who served as the Supreme Court’s first chief justice in 1789. He was appointed by President George Washington.
That “choosing” process Jay referred to is accomplished when we go to the poles to vote.
Ask folks what rights are most valued under the Constitution and inevitably their responses will include the right to vote. Most Americans believe they have a voice in their democracy because they can exercise that right.
At the time Chief Justice John Jay donned his judicial black robe, there were no federal voting standards nor was there any consensus on a national standard for voting rights. As a consequence, states were given the power to regulate their own voting laws.
The Constitution and laws of the United States grant the states wide latitude in how they administer elections. One might rightly suspect “wide latitude” to mean: “whatever we can get away with, we will.”
Recognizing the significance of each vote and its importance to outcomes–you can fantasize– political parties, special-interest groups, and the like, crafting ways to reinvent or circumvent the system for political advantage.
Evidence to this certainty showed up in the 2016 Electoral Integrity Project’s research, which demonstrated that the 2012 and 2014 American elections ranked poorly in comparison with many other countries; the United States scoring the worst in electoral integrity among Western democracies. Not exactly the confidence booster we were all hoping for.
Given the actuality that voting is such an important aspect of our democracy, you would think the courts would uniformly define election laws to ensure integrity in the process so when you and I head out to exercise our voting privilege we can honestly believe that.
Safeguarding integrity would involve identifying a states “compelling interest” and adhering to “strict scrutiny,” a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of its laws.
So just what would be considered a compelling interest? By definition, an interest is compelling when it is essential or necessary rather than a matter of choice, preference, or discretion.
Whoa! That bears repeating: “essential or necessary rather than a matter of choice, preference, or discretion.”
The courts have consistently held that preventing election fraud is a compelling governmental interest. Therefore, election regulations must narrowly tailor the law to achieve that interest. This inquiry into “fit” between the ends and the means enables courts to test the sincerity of the government’s claimed objective.
The US Supreme Court noted in its opinion in a 1964 case: ”Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breed’s distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”
So how does the State of Minnesota measure up to such scrutiny and how could one define its “compelling interest”?
Consider the findings of retired Twin Cities businessman Bruce Hendry, March 10, 2020 article in AlphaNews:
“There are expected to be nearly one million absentee ballots cast in the 2020 elections. And, because of an illegal rule created by Steve Simon, Minnesota’s Secretary of State, all of the absentee ballot board members doing the accepting and rejecting of ballot envelopes are hand picked by the appointing authority and not taken from the lists submitted by the major political parties as the law requires. Thus, there is no party balance oversight of the absentee ballot process.”
In addition, ”Simon is sending a letter to challenged voters – voters who voted illegally and may not vote again until the challenge is cleared up [in court] – that they can still vote as absentee voters.
“For the last two years, the Minnesota Voters Alliance has been in a lawsuit against Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon to force him to release public data from the statewide voter registration database. Ramsey County District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals have both ordered Simon to release the data but he refuses to comply, instead appealing those judgments to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which should issue its opinion soon. The data are needed to assess ineligible voting in Minnesota, and the performance of election officials in carrying out their constitutional duty to provide ballots only to eligible individuals.
“It is especially pathetic that in light of all the evidence for potential and actual voter fraud in Minnesota, the Secretary of State has done exactly nothing to assess or report on any of it. And why should he, it is working well for him and his party.”
“If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice [clever or cunning devices] or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good.” –John Adams: Inaugural Address – Philadelphia March 4, 1797.
Former Cook County Commissioner Garry Gamble is writing this ongoing column about the various ways government works, as well as other topics. At times the column is editorial in nature.
Leave a Reply