From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Supreme Court Upholds Ban On Write-In Votes.
Summary: Burdick vs. Takushi, Hawaii June 8, 1992; U.S. Supreme Court.
X-Disclaimer: Forwarded information, Poster is not responsible for content.
Keywords: Supreme Court, Voting, Write-In.
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:28:00 GMT

Forwarded from a mailing that someone gave me.
----    -v-    -----    -v-     ----     -v-    ----     
//  "Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Write-In Votes"  \\
	
	On June 8, The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in 
Burdick v Takushi, Hawaii case over whether states must permit
write-in votes. The 6-3 opinion, written by Justice Byron White,
not only upholds the ban on write-in voting, it also undermines 
previous faverable Supreme Court ballot access rulings.
	Never before had the Supreme Court upheld any law which 
permits an election for an office, yet it tells the voter that he
may not vote for someone who meets the constitutional requirements
to hold the office. All though the Court has upheld laws in some
states which keep certain candidates off the ballot, all of the 
states in the Court's ballot access cases permitted written-in voting.
	White's decision made no reference whatever to the plight of
voters for candidates of political parties who aren't able to get on
the ballot. This was so, even though there were three amicus briefs
mentioning that voters who support candidates of small political
parties have a special need to cast a write-in vote.
	White's decision ingnores Article I of the Constitution,
which sets forth the requirements to be a member of Congress (age,
citizenship, residency). The Supreme Court ruled in Powell v McCormack
in 1969 that that Congress may not add to these requirements.
Presumably, the states may not either (dozens of courts, going back
to 1918, have said that they may not).
	However, if a state is free to abolish write-in voting,
then no one in such states may be elected to Congress who dose not
comply with the state ballot access laws, including "sore loser"
laws. Write-in voting, at least for Congress, is a logical
corollary if Article I is to retain its vitality. Four members of
Congress since 1954 have been elected by Write-in votes; one of them
was a "sore loser."
	In addition to Hawaii, three other states - Nevada, Oklahoma,
and South Dakota - completely ban write-in voting.
	Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, and Thomas 
voted with White.
	In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The majority's
approval of Hawaii's ban is ironic at a time when the new democracies
in foreign countries strive to emerge from an era of sham elections
in which the name of the ruling party candidate was the only one 
on the ballot. Hawaii dose not impose as a severe restriction on the
right to vote, but it imposes a restriction that has a haunting
similarity in its tendency to exact severe penalties for one who
dose anything but vote the dominate party ballot.
	Justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens joined
Justice Kennedy in the dissent
	Portions of this article are reprinted from Richard Winger's
Ballot Access News, 3201 Baker St., San Francisco, CA 94123.

--------------------------  End of Text ------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination