MS GOP Ballot Shenanigans

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:59:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

New election year - same old GOP ballot shenanigans. Kos has the details (and an added thought from me - does this ballot require a Section 5 Justice Department preclearance?)

They're scared and corrupt, and that is a volatile mix. The full email press release from the Musgrove (D) campaign:

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann today presented an unlawful sample ballot which buries the special US Senate race between Governor Ronnie Musgrove and interim US Senator Roger Wicker. The ballot was approved by Governor Haley Barbour. Hosemann buried the Musgrove-Wicker race below all local races near the bottom of the ballot.

Hosemann could cite no statu[t]e supporting his decision to move the race from the top of the ballot. However, Attorney General Jim Hood did cite election law requiring federal races be placed at the top of the ballot. [ . . .]

Why? To depress voting in the Senate race. Kos again:

For obvious reasons, the lower on the ballot you go, the lower the response rate.

Political scientist Marty Wiseman says such a decision could hurt Musgrove, who’s hoping for a boost from Democratic turnout for presidential candidate Barack Obama. Historically, there’s a drop-off in votes from the top of the ballot to the bottom.

The GOP has always been scared of voter participation. This year will be no different. Shameless and outrageous.

< "Jews for Jesus" Leader Responds to Attacks on Group and Palin | Up-Or-Down, Or Shutting Down? The GOP's New Demands >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

MS GOP Ballot Shenanigans | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Barbour knows he can get away with this (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:04:37 PM EST

because he has the MS Supreme Court in his back pocket. This is what happens when Republicans get to control all of the branches of government.

Seriously, though, this is the kind of BS you expect in Zimbabwe, not the U.S.

I wonder if there's a VRA violation here.

Great thought (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:08:38 PM EST

Maybe a Section 5 change requiring (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:11:24 PM EST

Justice Department approval.


Here is the relevant standards (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:14:16 PM EST

: I do not know (none / 0) (#17)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:18:04 PM EST

if a decision regarding ballot placement really falls within the language of Section 5, even if a state statute is being violated. It's a question of interpretation.
But more to the point, the existence of Section 5 is a way to get the dispute into federal court in the first place, as opposed to having to bring it before the bought-and-paid-for MS Supreme Court. Of course there's no guarantee as to the result in federal court - and I think the DOJ could grant preclearance at the drop of a hat if they really wanted to - but it improves the odds.

If ever there were a preclearance state, (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:12:40 PM EST

it would be Mississippi.

But the Bush DOJ won't make a peep. This is going to court.


The statute cited (none / 0) (#6)
by eric on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:15:28 PM EST

clearly requires national races to be on top. Is there no law there?

SEC. 23-15-367

I would assume Mississippi to be lawless (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST

for these purposes.

Barbour similarly broke Mississippi law to set the election in November.


It is lawless down here, mainly (none / 0) (#11)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:33:59 PM EST

because of lack of progressive interest, coupled with the Good Ol Boy Network. Musgrove actually was within striking distance in earlier polls, but has waned because of shenanigans like the one in this post. They are also trying to blunt the impact on down ticket races of a certain demographic that is expected to participate in record numbers this season. I'm not sure the anti-Dem effort is gonna work, as Musgrove has respectable favorability. We'll see.


: Honestly, I'm not sure why (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST

Musgrove, who sounds for all the world like a Republican, would engender much "progressive interest." But what Barbour is doing is pretty outrageous by any standard.

This is the state where the (none / 0) (#14)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:46:45 PM EST

Supreme Court Majority tried to block the publishing of the minority opinion less than 3 weeks ago. To their ...er....credit, they changed their mind. Adverse publicity will have that affect.

I don't know if

Mississippi State Supreme Court vote bans one of its own from dissent
It may be the first time a majority of the justices voted to prohibit a colleague from publishing a dissent in a case.
In other words, Presiding Justice Oliver Diaz of Ocean Springs disagreed with a court decision and wanted to write about it. His fellow judges said, no, he couldnï¿½t and they apparently stopped the court clerk from filing Diazï¿½s statement into the record.
Diaz's document also wasnï¿½t made available to the public, as every other order and dissent are.
"My job as a Supreme Court justice is to write opinions and dissents, when necessary," Diaz said later Thursday. "I was prevented from doing so by a majority of the court."

: Exactly so (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:51:06 PM EST

The VRA was designed with situations like this one in mind, IMO. Question is, will the DOJ or Federal courts enforce it?

: Wow, that is (none / 0) (#16)
by eric on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:02:41 PM EST

shocking. And scary.

I sometimes pull this kind of a stunt (none / 0) (#8)
by eric on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:20:24 PM EST

with the special verdict form that I propose for jury trials. I put my client last on the list of those possibly negligent, in the hope the the jury will find it the least at fault.

The judge usually doesn't agree...

Well (none / 0) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM EST

at this late date can anything be done? It would seem that a court challenge wouldn't end up being settled until after the election.

An injunction is available under Section 5 (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM EST

Musgrove would have standing to have it challenged.


: slightly OT but a question-- (none / 0) (#12)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:34:13 PM EST

BTD, can you essay about voter suppression in MS in the future? Please?

This is a small taste (none / 0) (#18)
by kenosharick on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM EST

of what may be on the way, I am afraid. The repub party must give training seminars in this kind of crap!

I am confused (none / 0) (#19)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:52:36 PM EST

how does it reduce voter participation if the voter has to be in the booth to see what position the names are in? Hopefully the person in the voting booth has studied the persons and issues enough to know who to vote for when they enter the booth.

It is not like Canada, Mexico or Germany where they ask to see your id before voting.

Maybe we should have the voters (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:55:40 PM EST

take a literacy test too, right?


: So knowing (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:19:57 PM EST

what the candidates stand for before going into the booth is the same as a literacy test? Inferring from your post, you do not want people to know what each candidate stands for before going into the booth. Correct? Just walk in and then do your research. Yup.

Read the post again (none / 0) (#22)
by eric on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM EST

Historically, there's a drop-off in votes from the top of the ballot to the bottom.

It reduced participation because down-ballot spots tend to have fewer voters registering their vote. Pretty simple.


: My take (none / 0) (#23)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:37:36 PM EST

is that most people vote straight ticket, therefore less going down to the bottom of ballot. And if people have not read up on the issues or the candidates they do not have a reason to look towards the bottom, correct? Bottom line: an informed voter will look at the entire ballot.