Nah. We’re listening. 
10 Likes
Maybe a funding issue, with one receiving massive infusions of corporate and oligarch cash, and the other not?
If so, I don’t think the latter is embarrassing.
9 Likes
Sure, but the local chapter could still do something. The fact that they aren’t even putting on, I don’t know, a panel with local attorneys to talk about Constitutional rights or something. I mean, there are things they could do that wouldn’t cost a lot of money.
8 Likes
Good. This is the right outcome.
11 Likes
There might be a better place for this, but I’m puttin’ it here…
10 Likes
This is so good. They should make a special where Mystal gets to talk about all 10 laws.
7 Likes
He kicks so much ass.
7 Likes
Another interview with him…
KERMIE!
7 Likes
A federal judge overturned the SCONC ruling that blocked Justice-elect Riggs from being seated with her 734-vote lead from the November 2024 election. The federal judge’s order is SCATHING and directly orders the North Carolina Elections Commission to certify Riggs as the winner. It rejects the SCONC order that thousands of overseas military and civilian voters would need to repair their registrations within days, it rejects all the injunctive relief requests from Riggs’ opponent and state republicans and grants all injunctive relief requested by Riggs and her allies.
“[T]he court wishes to make clear that this case is not about the prerogative of North Carolina courts to interpret North Carolina law. Without question, those courts ‘are the principal expositors of state law,'” Myers wrote. “This case is also not about North Carolina’s primacy to establish rules for future state elections; it may do so. Rather, this case concerns whether the federal Constitution permits a state to alter the rules of an election after the fact and apply those changes retroactively to only a select group of voters, and in so doing treat
those voters differently than other similarly situated individuals.”
Judge Myers is basing this decision on the Constitutional rights of the voters who would be retroactively disenfranchised by the SCONC ruling.So here is my question: assuming appeals in this case go all the way to SCOTUS, is it likely based on prior decisions that political gerrymandering is A-OK as long as it isn’t race-based, since the voters who were being disenfranchised aren’t in a protected class, that SCOTUS might overturn Myers’ ruling?
16 Likes
Normally I would say that who “retroactively changing the rules to rig the vote” would make this an open and shut case, but…
14 Likes
Exactly. Applying laws and rules changes retroactively is normally an automatic no no. This shouldn’t even need to be explained, but people need to know what the laws and rules are so that they can act within the law, and within those rules. If past actions can be made illegal, or if a prior vote valid per the rules at the time the vote was cast can be made invalid by a later rules change, then the law becomes this entirely arbitrary thing that can be wielded by those currently in power to do anything they want.
And if SCOTUS chooses to hear this case (they really shouldn’t . . . they should let the current federal court decision stand, assuming it’s upheld by the appeals court, which I’m certain it will be), how will they vote? We know Alito and Thomas will side with SCONC. They’ll spout some bullshit about how it’s not the place of the federal courts to tell states how to run their elections (never mind the fact that they have done so many times). We know how the three liberal justices will vote. I’m pretty sure ACB will side with them. So it will come down to Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. This doesn’t have anything to do with Native Americans or the Administrative State, so I’m not sure how Gorsuch will vote. He may go with Alito and Thomas. I think Roberts and Kavanaugh might go with the liberals on this one. But I also think there’s a good chance that only Alito and Thomas even vote to grant cert on this.
16 Likes
Thanks for that. Yeah, and this isn’t even about the ballots themselves. It’s about voter registration issues, IIRC. So these are voters who had valid registrations at the time of the election, whose registrations are being challenged after the fact.
One of the other maddening tactics being used here is that there are probably a lot of other voters with the same issues, but these registrations are being challenged selectively. That is a practice that has to end ASAP. If you’re going to purge or challenge registration or ballots with a certain attribute, you have to apply it across the state. No picking and choosing based on geography, political party, or district.
17 Likes