Legislating From The Bench or Doing Their Job

Here in Iowa, our election day was not only for representatives, senators and a governor. In fact, a huge issue getting a lot of the play was on the retention or rejection of 3 Iowa Supreme Court justices. After all was said and done, Marsha K. Ternus, the chief justice; Michael J. Streit; and David L. Baker — received about 45 percent of the vote, making this the first time members of the state’s high court had been rejected by voters.

“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor who led the campaign. “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”

“What is so disturbing about this is that it really might cause judges in the future to be less willing to protect minorities out of fear that they might be voted out of office,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. “Something like this really does chill other judges.”

A massive portion of the campaign to oust the judges was funded by out of state groups, helping to support the efforts led by Vander Plaats, and heralded by Representative Steve King.

A lot of the arguments put forth by pundits and regular citizens alike was that the ouster was the result of Iowans being displeased with the state Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Now I may be a conservative, but this is one area where I break ranks with our so-called standard bearers.

For one, I personally think the idea of gay marriage is a non-issue and therefor irrelevant in regards to government oversight, save the license issuing process that heterosexual couples go through. Secondly, I personally believe the process behind letting citizens decide to stop homosexuals from being allowed to marry or not is ludicrous. Since the state Supreme Court said the legislation was essentially flawed and struck down as unconstitutional, gay marriage opponents and politicians have taken to their soapboxes to proclaim the injustice of an opinion differing from theirs. Boo-friggin-hoo!

I believe when allowing citizens to vote on the rights of other people's lives you have to look at a couple things. One- does there allowance to participate in some activity truly harm you? Two- Is the vote on an amendment to allow a freedom or restrict a freedom.

Personally, I know gay people, and have some people related to me who have chosen (or are naturally?) the homosexual lifestyle. Am I for gay activities? Not really. I have always and will always prefer women for romantic relations. But in regards to homosexuality I don't have to participate in, condone, or suffer from their lifestyle, or choose to associate myself with anyone who does. Whether or not two gay people decide to get married will ultimately never affect me personally, and I highly doubt it will affect any of the other straight people living around here.

Conservatives are always bitching about how they want the government to stay out of their personal lives and let them live and operate freely as they see fit. But then all of a sudden, hoards of queers appear on the horizon, in full war paint ready to charge on in and ruin their idea of civilization, and now they want to use our system of governance to prohibit the activities of individuals.

Look I get the God-fearing church crowd being dismayed at homosexual activities and lifestyle, I really do. Say what you want, let your heart be filled with all that hate you wish to hold, but remember a couple teachings from the Good Book. Do not judge, for that is the role of God. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Pull the plank out of your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's.

In other words, you aren't perfect, so who the hell are you to tell other people how wrong they are. Fix up your own house and let others fix their own house as they see fit. Again, you don't have to hang out with homosexuals or people who accept homosexuals as friends for that matter. You don't have to engage in homosexual behavior or gay marriage. Your church does not have to recognize anything related to homosexuals. In the same moment, keep your government out of it as well.

Quit pissing and moaning about how the government is trying to legislate your activities, and then turn around and do the same thing to someone you disagree with. That only makes you a hypocrite. And while everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinions, the rest of those around you are equally entitled to disagree with you and tell you to stuff it where the sun don't shine.

So, unlike many of my conservative friends, I voted to retain the three judges. I voted for the losing side. That doesn't make me wrong, just makes me in the minority at the polls. The judges did NOT legislate from the bench, contrary to popular opinion, but merely did their job in not restricting the freedoms of citizens under their jurisdiction.

To Steal The Title From Shirley: I Voted Today

So today, I voted. And this time, I was actually ON the ist of area registered voters, unlike the 2006 midterm elections, which somehow found my records nonexistent, despite previously voting in '04, and having changed nothing about any of my statuses (Statii??) I don't know with how much knowledge or a clear conscience I voted.
As far as the clear conscience goes, neither major party presidential candidate really got me too fired up. So I voted for the one who would keep government's infringement on me to a lesser level. For those of you who don't know who that is, it would be one Senator John McCain.

Other than that we had a slew of representatives for state and federal congressional seats. With those people, I at least knew something about them (with a little additional help from robocalls). With a local representative for my district, I voted the republican side, only because the democratic candidate had 2 mailers in my mailbox, EVERY-motherloving-DAY! Every day, 2 separate mailers...are you friggin kidding me??? He was mayor of a neighboring suburb, and boasted a balanced budget, and I found out one reason was by consistently and successfully raising property taxes without fail for his small suburban empire. Apparently, spending money is something he didn't have too many qualms about. The other guy sent out some, and yes, they did almost reach the ridiculous level in the last 2 weeks, but nowhere in the same universe for the entire campaign. The republican's fliers always stated statistics. The democrat's fliers spouted some statistics, usually related to the great things he did (like keep a balanced budget), and the 2nd flier usually spouted how evil the republican candidates ideas were.
There was one state representative running for office, somewhere here in Iowa, as a democrat, which I had seen advertised on our local tv stations. I liked his positions, however, upon looking over my ballot, he must've been representing another district altogether.

Anyways, the rest of the ballot consisted of judges we voted on to retain or not, some hospital trustee positions, county commisioner, and a few other oddball offices. I have to say, I have yet to have even heard of a single one of these people. So pretty much all the judges got retained on my ballot, and the other offices, if I could only pick so many was a big fat case of "eeny-meeny-miny-mo". Yes, I know, scientific analyses of the candidates at the polling place, right? I had contemplated writing myself in on some of these, but I figured my popularity off-line isn't nearly as high as it is on the internet...

SO yeah, it was pretty easy, as there wasn't exactly a line, and I got myself and my youngest in-and-out of that place pretty quickly. So let me know how your experience went, if you care to share.

Voter ID Laws Help, Not Hinder

Here is a recent article regarding Voter ID laws, specifically that of Indiana. It is written and was submitted to Human Events Publishing by Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita. I looked into this after reading a posting by Sherry Chandler, which included note of Missouri's Voter ID law being struck down. You can find the link to her blog on the right hand side along with other blogs to consider. Feel free to leave your point of view, or questions.

Indiana Photo ID Law Works
by Todd Rokita
Posted: 05/29/2008

As the Indiana polls opened at 6:00 am on May 6, opponents of Indiana’s Photo ID law eagerly anticipated word from our more than 5,500 precincts that the state’s requirement that all voters show a photo ID at the polls was causing havoc. It’s what they told the United States Supreme Court would happen. To them, it was time to watch Indiana’s most highly anticipated presidential primary in generations collapse under the weight of the requirement.

In Indiana, our election officials and voters are fully committed to increasing confidence in and the integrity of our elections. We have invested a great deal of time, money, and energy over the last few years in needed improvements to our election processes. The central component to this effort is the preservation of the fundamental right of each citizen over the age of 18 to have ONE vote, and to have that vote count.

In recent years, sweeping reforms and improvements to the way we administer elections have included new voting systems in all 92 counties, improved accessibility of polling places, educational outreach and training, and absentee ballot reform. One of the most significant and important reforms has been our photo identification law, which requires voters to prove their identity by presenting a photo ID before casting a ballot.

One week prior to Indiana’s primary elections, the United States Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s photo ID law. The Justices agreed that, with our law, Indiana is paving the road to better voter confidence for states by preventing in-person voter fraud.

Jeffrey Milyo, a professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri, had noted in a recent study that overall voter turnout in Indiana has actually increased since the implementation of the photo ID law. I attribute this directly to voters having better confidence in the process, and therefore, being more willing to invest their time in it.
Several other studies by organizations like the Universities of Nebraska and Delaware and the Heritage Foundation tell us requiring ID at the polls does not reduce voter turnout.
On May 6th, opponents to the law were left disappointed. Indiana experienced one of its highest turnouts ever for a primary election. Turnout increased from 21 percent in the 2004 primary to around 40 percent for the 2008 primary. Presumably, the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary brought scores of new voters to the polls. Nearly 76 percent of the participants took part in the Democratic primary. By comparison, in 2004, only 40 percent of those who participated voted in the Democratic primary.

Simply put, Indiana voters showed up by the hundreds of thousands to fulfill their civic duty with a photo ID in hand. According to our figures, the number showing up to vote without ID continues to be miniscule, dropping slightly even from previous elections when the rate has been two-tenths of a percentile. In fact, opponents of the concept of having a voter identify his or herself still cannot produce one voter who has experienced a violation of his or her rights.

The deadline to file recounts with the state recount commission has passed. Despite close contests in both the Democratic presidential race as well as that party's gubernatorial primary, no one has filed for a recount. No one has found reason to question the results our closely watched, closely contested statewide election.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, election leaders across the country can now confidently move forward with their efforts to protect voters and improve the integrity of the election process. Mississippi, Missouri, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Kansas, Illinois, Oklahoma and Texas are all states where photo ID requirements were debated and voted on in legislatures this year, and scores of other states have called my office wanting details on the law.

Sure, my staff was in place before sunrise on primary day, ready to ensure a smooth election by helping voters find their polling places, answering questions, and looking into any polling place issues that would come up. But of the more than 1,300 calls we took that day from voters, only two even related to enforcement of Indiana’s photo ID law -- neither demonstrating that someone was shut out from voting.

And even if they were, photo ID opponents fail to point out one very important Federalist notion – that states have the right to put parameters on, and therefore, introduce order into their electoral processes. To not do so would allow chaos to ensnarl the process, rendering it useless. Results would be in doubt and voter confidence shredded. The likelihood of increased participation would dwindle.

Indiana has now conducted eight successful elections since the passage of the photo ID law. There has not been one proven instance of a voter who was unable to exercise his or her right to vote due to the law. The law itself helps prevent this, including provisions to allow voting by those who forget their ID, can’t make it to the polls on Election Day, or who have religious objections to being photographed. The well-publicized nuns in South Bend, who were reportedly unable to vote during this year’s primary election due to not having proper photo ID indeed had the opportunity under the law to cast a provisional ballot and have their votes count by producing ID within ten days. This is eight days longer than Jimmy Carter even suggested when the Carter-Baker Commission suggested photo ID was needed in the polling to boost election integrity and participation. Sadly, they all waived this right to participate in the election process.

Indiana’s photo ID law is our state’s means of protecting the integrity of elections in a manner that creates the least burden for citizens. Furthermore, it’s a right and duty given to us by the 10th Amendment. It is about ensuring accuracy through increased integrity. It’s a 21st century way to manage our election process that gives us confidence again in exercising our franchise -- our most sacred civic transaction. I look forward to an exhilarating 2008 general election with this issue finally settled.