In their Complaint, Case 3:19-cv-00383-DPJ-FKB, Plaintiffs contend that Three Provisions of the Mississippi Constitution Impair their Choice. Seven African-American Plaintiffs seek an Order Striking the Voting Laws found in Sections 140, 141, and 143 of Article V of the Mississippi Constitution.
The Provisions provide that Successful Candidates for State-Level, Statewide Office must Receive Both: The Majority of the Popular Vote (“the Popular-Vote Rule”) and a Plurality of Votes in a Majority of Mississippi House Districts (“the Electoral-Vote Rule”).
If No Candidate satisfies both the Popular-Vote and the Electoral-Vote Rules, then the “House-Vote Rule” applies, Id. 140.
The House of Representatives shall Proceed to Choose [the Winner] from the Two Persons who shall have Received the Highest Number of Popular Votes, Id. § 141.
By these Terms, Sections 140 and 141 Control Statewide Elections for Governor.
Section 143 applies these Same Procedures to All Other Statewide-Elected, and State-Level Offices, Id. § 143.
The Court held the Constitutional Provision likely Violates the One Person, One Vote Rule of Gray v. Sanders.
The Court explained that States should be given an Opportunity to Fix Defective Voting Laws:
It is now established beyond challenge that upon finding a particular standard, practice, or procedure to be contrary to either a federal constitutional or statutory requirement, the federal court must grant the appropriate state or local authorities an opportunity to correct the deficiencies. In Reynolds v. Sims the Supreme Court commended the district court for refraining from enjoining an impending election until the Alabama Legislature had been given an opportunity to remedy the defects in their legislative apportionment scheme. 377 U.S. at 586 . . . . Further, after trial on the merits, and a declaration that an existing election scheme is unlawful, it is “appropriate, whenever practicable, to afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet constitutional [or federal statutory] requirements by adopting a substitute measure rather than for the federal court to devise and order into effect its own plan.” Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540 . . . (1978). See also McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 150 n.30 . . . (1981) (“Moreover, even after a federal court has found a districting plan unconstitutional, ‘redistricting and reapportioning legislative bodies is a legislative task which the federal courts should make every effort not to preempt,’” quoting Wise v. Lipscomb).
In the present Case, the Challenged Provisions are not merely Statutes that can be Revised in One Legislative Session. They are Constitutional Provisions that require Amendment. That Process cannot occur before the November 2019 Votes are Counted or within a Short Time after the Election.
Whether the Popular-Vote Rule is Constitutional or Not, Mississippi could choose, in its own Judgment, to Scrap it if the Electoral Vote or House Vote Rules are Invalidated. Or it could keep it with a Different Mechanism for Deciding the Winner if No Candidate receives a Majority. There are Numerous Methods for Electing Statewide Officials.
Federal Courts are simply ill-equipped to make such Policy Decisions and “should jealously guard and sparingly use [their] awesome powers to ignore or brush aside long-standing state constitutional provisions, statutes, and practices.” Chisom, 853 F.2d at 1189.4.
For these reasons, Granting a Preliminary Injunction weighed against Plaintiffs’ Motion.
We will have to see how the States Revises it Vote Counting System.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment