Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Being rewarded for bad behavior
|
Friday, February 29, 2008
Being rewarded for bad behavior
Sandy Levinson
Unless Barack Obama wins both Texas and Ohio (and adds Pennsylvania a couple of weeks later for good measure), the race will go on, and the controversy about counting delegates from Florida and Michigan will become ever more heated. The Clinton position that the results of the primaries held there in January, in patent defiance of the Democratic National Committee, should be honored, is preposterous. The candidates had pledged to honor the ban by not campaigning there. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states and certainly didn't campaign. But if Clinton and Obama remain more-or-less tied after the next string of primaries, there will, I suspect, be great pressure to rehold the primaries in a context where both candidates can campaign. This appears fair on the surface, but there is a real paradox in adopting this solution.
Comments:
I agree. Michigan and Florida have been acting selfishly. Plus they run those obnoxious commercials. Michigan is all, like, look at me—I am so business friendly. Florida is, I’m so warm and sunny, everybody love me. Do they even think about how that makes the other states feel? What kind of example are they setting for the younger states, like Hawaii and Alaska? This is simply unacceptable behavior and I am glad someone has finally had the courage to call them on it.
A few points.
Others may correct me on this, but, according to several sources (a current good posting is at Open Left ), Obama has opened up a large lead in pledged delegates, is closing the gap in superdelegates, and is very likely to continue winning more pledged delegates in the upcoming primaries and caucuses to the point where the controversy over Michigan and Florida delegates will become moot. Secondly, IIRC, the reason that the Michigan and Florida dates were moved up for Democrats was not due to their efforts, but due to those of their Republican controlled legislatures (who would be the true miscreants in your example). Therefore, the Democratic voters in those states would at best be rewarded for the bad behavior of the other party; kind of like how I as a voter, who do not think that the current stimulus bill is a good one, will still be rewarded by a $1200 check from the government (that I will likely have to cash to pay bills anyway, because I am currently unemployed--even though I believe that extending unemployment benefits would have been better as an aid package, and not just for my own benefit).
Sorry for the bad embedded link; if it is copied and pasted, eliminating the blogger portion will still get you there.
Long after the primary, Florida is still a source of dispute. One camp believes that we should "count every vote," while the other thinks that the outcome should be decided by the rules agreed to in advance.
A problem with a "do-over" is avoiding stepping on the "doo-doo" responsible for the "do-over" in the first place. Sometimes a "second opinion" leads to a third, ....
I do not know about Michigan, but I doubt Florida's GOP legislature is going to waste state money for a Dem do over primary.
Re: Florida's HB 537
It's not clear that "the republicans did this." Final Florida House vote: 118-0 Developing: Clinton aides threatened lawsuit over Texas caucuses, officials say
HowardGilbert:
Long after the primary, Florida is still a source of dispute. One camp believes that we should "count every vote," while the other thinks that the outcome should be decided by the rules agreed to in advance. You seem to think there's an unavoidable inconsistency there. I'd note that it was the Republican legislators in Florida in 2000 that threatened to pass a law allocating the electoral college members to the Dubya camp ex post facto if the courts should have the temerity to actually count all the votes and they came out the wrong way. Pretending that the Democrats wanted "new" rules for counting is disingenuous. People (and the courts) were just trying to do the best that they could given the admittedly vague but otherwise quite defencible "clear intent of the voter", a standard that served (and serves) for many other states as well. Cheers,
If the "reward" for trying to jump to the front of the line is being forced to the end of the line, that's not much of a reward. In future cycles, any state which thinks there's advantage in voting last could simply schedule that in the first place.
Also, there's a simple punishment that will strongly dissuade such behavior in the future without completely disenfranchising voters: ban the super-delegates of both states from the convention. Hell - ban them from all future conventions. Since they are the very people who broke the rules, they are properly the ones who should suffer most.
Quoting final vote totals tells us a remarkably small amount about what actually went on before the vote; there are so many dynamics of power involved and so much telegraphing that the actual vote totals, just like NARAL scorecards and the like, have to be taken with a sizable grain of salt.
See for example here and better yet here. I would be quite interested, actually, to read decent journalism (pro or not) going into the dynamics of why those contests stayed moved up even after the DNC ruling. And, hell, I'm Canadian, I got no monkey in this fight.
Professor Levinson is dead wrong because he is ignoring the injustice that started this process-- that Iowa and New Hampshire, two tiny unrepresentative states, get to go first every time and always eliminate candidates, denying those of us in California and other big states from being able to vote for the candidate of our choice. And that's especially bad because California and the other big states should carry the most weight in the process-- more people live here and are affected by governmental decisions, we pay more in taxes to fund the government, and we have the most electoral votes.
So instead of California's needs and the other big states' needs being tended to (especially those that are not swing states in the general election), we get stupid policies like ethanol subsidies to bribe Iowa voters. Florida and Michigan thus don't DESERVE any punishment, because what they did was attempt to break the monopoly of Iowa and New Hampshire on going first. And that was the right thing to do. Now, the question of seating the delegates is a separate question-- I can certainly see holding Hillary to her promises that the primaries wouldn't count. But in terms of whether Florida and Michigan deserve punishment, no, they do not. They deserve a reward.
Florida and Michigan thus don't DESERVE any punishment, because what they did was attempt to break the monopoly of Iowa and New Hampshire on going first. And that was the right thing to do.
Okay, but what is the national party's legal obligation to the states regarding the primaries? If the party says "don't do X or you'll be disqualified" and a state does X, why should anyone be surprised or upset if that state is disqualified? Furthermore, does the honorable intent of the state excuse it from the rule?
PMS:
No, it doesn't. But only because of the issue of fairness to the candidates. In terms of fairness to the party, the party got what it deserved and, if it wants to avoid this situation in the future, get rid of Iowa and New Hampshire's first in the nation status.
While Michigan and Florida's actions were self-interested, they were also praiseworthy. The Iowa/New Hampshire process is an awful way to select presidential candidates, and the states it disempowers are right to vigorously contest it.
I don't favor seating the delegates because the candidates agreed to the rules and Senator Clinton is engaged in a transparently cynical attempts to manipulate the process to her own advantage. That said, the party was wrong to negate their votes in the first place.
When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible.
Post a Comment
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |