Yahya's late blog on Elections and Term Limits

Elections and Term limits: The Debate over the 2000 election, the Due process of law, and the power of the Supreme Court

These cases come to touch upon the heart of the text book definition of democracy: “free and frequent elections.” In these cases we come to see controversy over the power of the judicial system as seen in the 2000 election and the consistent “No’’ from the supreme court when it came to term limits because its lack of constitutionality, and its encroachment upon our democracy.

In the cases of term limits the decisions ended up being blow outs against all laws pertaining to term limits, the first case was decided in seven to two decision and the next was decided in a sweep.

In the case US Term Limits, Inc vs Thornton the Supreme Court came to the decision of keeping the playing field level for elected officials across the US. The case started by a proposition that proposed amendment number 73 to the state constitution of Arkansas.
This proposition made into law that all elected representatives will serve no more than two terms in office and it was taken to court on the basis of unconstitutionality, and being undemocratic. However there are quite a few good counter arguments to both of these points. How could this law be unconstitutional when the constitution never specifies term limits for anyone except for the president, and also in the tenth amendment it states that all powers that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution shall shall be decided by the states. And so it makes sense that people of Arkansas to their own democratic initiative to exercise their power, by proposition, which was given to them in the constitution, and so this law seems to be democratic. This law is presents itself to democratic because it reflects on the will of the people and how they wished to be governed. The reason that this law was to keep elected officials honest by making them think of their constituencies instead of reelections. But dont you win elections by making our constituents happy? But also their is the fact that once an elected official has won office their percentage of winning an election is all the way at 95% or higher. As democratic and constitutional as this law seemed to the people of Arkansas, it broke one important tenet of our democracy. The law in Arkansas violates the due process of law for the official that wants to run for office in Arkansas. It disenfranchises the official from serving their country, while no other state imposes this law, and hence makes an uneven battlefield for elected officials.

In Cook vs Gralike the Supreme court had an easier decision to make. A law by proposition in Missouri placed one specific fact pertaining to a person running for office about their stance on the implementation of term limits next to their name on the ballot. This was also both democratic and undemocratic. it was democratic because it clearly defined the person running for office via their stance on policies, and so helped the voter make a much more informed decision when it came to election time. However, the case became easier to decide upon because the statute in Missouri was to only put the person running for office’s stance on term limits, the ballot read, “Disregarded voter’s instruction on Term Limits” or “Declined to pledge to support term limits.” What this rhetoric did was that it boiled the entire campaign of someone running for office into one stance, and then fed it to the voter during the time that is most crucial when it comes to elections: the time right before the the ballot is cast. This violated the due process of law of the person running for office. However, it is not a bad idea if all of the candidates’ stances are listed, and if the rhetoric is not filled with such mal-intent.

The Election of 2000 set the precedent for being the first of its kind when it came Supreme Court decisions. The case Bush vs Palm Beach was simply the precursor for the next case, and deciding case, Bush vs Gore. The first case began on November 8, 2000, a day after the election. In the election Florida was the deciding factor, and at the end of the race it was still to close to call. According to the official count at the time Governor Bush won by a grand total of less than 2000 votes, which was less than one half of one percent. A Florida state statute claimed that if any election came that close to call an automatic recount would be ordered. After the next recount the margin of victory for Governor Bush became even smaller, and that is where this suit picks up. Vice President Al Gore demanded a re-recount in four counties: Volusia, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward. The suit was over whether or not their should be a recount in those counties, and in Florida circuit court decided to that there would be a seven day dead line, and then the Secratary of the State of Florida would decide whether or not to include the recount. This is extremely sketchy because the secretary is on the payroll of Candidate Bush’s brother, Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida. The case was taken to
the Supreme Court which decided that the Florida Supreme Court should have not gotten involved with the case at all and that the case should be handed over to the state legislature.

This decision became all the more weird in Bush v Gore. The case centered around the recounting of the ballots in the state of Florida. Vice President Gore wanted a the recount to count, while Governors Bush did not want the ballots to count. The Supreme Court makes a decision that is contrary to the decision it made in Bush v Palm Beach. The Supreme court grants a stay to the case. The reason the Supreme Court granted the stay was because of the lack of standards in the Floridian voting system, and because of these lack of standards the recount would simply become arbitrary. However, according to the Supreme Courts own reasoning it should have referred the case to the Congress of the United States where all other presidential issues had been resolved in out history. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant a stay in the recounting process gave George W Bush the presidency in the 2000 election. But, also the Supreme Court stated that this decision should not be made a precedent for upcoming elections. This is weird because the court understood that what it was doing something questionable.

In conclusion we come to see the power of Supreme Court as stated in the constitution, but we also come to see the power that the court has come to set for itself. The most interesting things that I found was how easy it was to argue both ways in all of the cases, and how the arguments could have been so much more effective if the issue at hand would have been taken one step further, such as with Cook vs Gralike by making the ballots include actual stances on policies by the candidate instead of having to make an important decision blindly.