Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Hasen reports a judge in New Hampshire has upheld giving the GOP (or whoever winds up on top) the top line on the ballot, while admitting this causes an average 4% advantage to the party with the top line. I think this is the wrong result. The case was argued, at taxpayer expense, by the AG. Lemme guess, he's GOP and was elected with the top line on the ballot? This is a double conflict of interest - I find it deeply problematic when AG's side with unconstitutional legislation, and here he has a material interest in the outcome of the case. With the key fact - an average 4% disparity - established,t he case can go to an appeal on the question of whether the ballot line advantage violates equal protection. I havent read the case - I wonder what the standard of review was, is, or should be?
Comments: Post a Comment