Narrative Brokers Don’t Like Rule Of Law

It is especially sad that the writer of a recent editorial may actually think this way ..for real.

I often marvel at how a political perspective can be so exposed in a single editorial.

The left would upend all manner of things traditional Americans and Michiganians stand for. Rule-of-law, constitutional authority, and what constitutes voting access. Today, the Traverse City Record Eagle editorial bemoaned the decision by the Michigan Appeals Court to uphold our state statute regarding absentee ballots:

“There’s nothing more frustrating than a last-minute rules change.

But that’s exactly what voters face after a three-judge panel at the Michigan Court of Appeals decided to overturn a lower court’s decision about how and when absentee votes should be counted.”

Actually, the rules have been in place for 66 years. One would think THAT is enough time to get your affairs in order to vote. The rules are the rules, and Act 116 of 1954, MCL 168.764a provides the rules for absentee voting, and specifically in Step 6: “The ballot must reach the clerk or an authorized assistant of the clerk before the close of the polls on election day. An absent voter ballot received by the clerk or assistant of the clerk after the close of the polls on election day will not be counted. “

So there is that.  (it continues ..)

“The Friday afternoon ruling effectively prohibits elections clerks from counting any mailed ballots that are postmarked before Election Day but arrive after polls close.

The judges reversed a lower court ruling that would’ve allowed clerks to count any ballots postmarked prior to the election, but because of mail delays, are dropped in elections officials’ hands during the 14 day window following Election Day when officials must certify results.”

A good decision.  The lower courts should be reexamined.

“The decision — a pretty substantial deadline change for voters who want to cast mailed ballots — is only the latest in a passel of policy shifts voters face nationwide. It’s also a ridiculously late change that jeopardizes many voters’ access to the upcoming election.

The legal wrangling we’ve witnessed during the past month in states across the country has further politicized what should be the most apolitical function of our democracy.

There are reasons for restrictions that keep political operatives a safe distance from the polls. And there are plenty of reasons we all should want politics removed from the mechanisms that allow us to cast absentee ballots.

Yet here we are.”

Woof. How to unwrap this. I have emboldened the relevant and the obviously absurd perspectives, leaving nearly nothing untouched.

The editorialist opines as-if the law was changed just now. Calling it “policy shifts,” even as the actual policy if-at-all changed, was only in the mind of the current Secretary of state who does NOT have such legal discretion.

Voter’s access remains unchanged as well. No amount of editorializing can change the fact that COVID-19 stops no-one from securing a ballot, either by application or by in-person voting and submitting said ballot in a timely manner. We are more than two weeks away at the point where the decision to uphold the statute is made.

Then to bemoan legal wrangling alongside the complaints, completely ignores the legal ‘wrangling’ nightmares that would be amplified by delays for a few votes here-or-there (ala chads, mismarks, late ballots, disqualified, etc), which would become a legal nightmare, further “politicizing” the process.

Oh and by the way, we have a Republic, ..NOT a “democracy.”

As for keeping political operatives away, the RE opinion meister might want to think about who takes over when vote/ballot wrangling begins the day after. Attorneys for either of the big parties and those who hold their leashes.

Removing “Politics from the mechanisms that allow us to cast absentee ballots.” might be better accomplished by admonishing those who attempt to subvert the law unilaterally (Benson, Whitmer, Nessel), and suggesting that we actually follow the law that has been time tested and tweaked through a process that is legislative and proper and represents the will of those who actually care to vote.

The following statement makes me giggle.

“The still-unfolding court wrangling around absentee voting regulations in Michigan is nothing but political.”

Welcome to real life.

“The parties have taken it upon themselves to work the courts to either boost or suppress absentee voter turnout — whichever they believe will help their team at the polls.

It’s a sad state of affairs, really.”

Perhaps we can clarify something.  One party has worked to accommodate the process by providing a legislative fix (Oct 6th) that has been signed into law to make it easier for clerks to manage the absentees, while the other party has attempted to upend all the ACTUAL rules that have been in place for over 6 decades. Yeah, it is “sad” that the other party would attempt to subvert the process so reliably.

“And the end result isn’t a more safe, secure or reliable election. No, the winners and losers now being decided in state courts are of little or no importance when compared to the damage they cause.

Damage to our confidence in our elections.

So, as we all look forward to Election Day, toward exercising our democratic rights through what should be an apolitical mechanism, we all must plan ahead.

No matter what party, candidate or ballot issue you support, we believe every Michigander should exercise their right to weigh in on Election Day. And we’re less than impressed by any political wrangling that makes that process more difficult.

Actually, because of the ruling, Michiganians will know who won the night of, or at the very least on the morning after. Safety of our elections has been preserved with less time for the “political wrangling” to actually happen after the fact. Winners and loser will actually be decided by those who care about their vote enough to show uo, and NOT the players engaged by the parties after voting day.

“So we want to take this opportunity to remind our neighbors, friends and community to make a plan to ensure their vote counts, regardless of what shenanigans unfold in the courts during the next two weeks.

After all, Election Day is our opportunity to steer our democracy. And no politician or court has a right to take that power from us.”

We can agree that a plan can be made to ensure proper representation in our political process.. In fact we believe that folks need to take it seriously enough that showing up (if necessary) and voting is the best bet to make sure a person’s will is considered during an election.

As for power, there is another perpective.  The people elect representatives to create and pass law such as the election law we follow.  The effort by the Governor and Secretary of state was certainly an effort to “take that power” from us.

And again ..we live in a Republic, ..and we plan on keeping it.

 

You Betcha! (16)Nuh Uh.(0)

  2 comments for “Narrative Brokers Don’t Like Rule Of Law

  1. Sue Schwartz
    October 19, 2020 at 5:11 pm

    Good Job Jason and thank you for identifying the players: Michiganians vs Michiganders. So hoping those damn geese among us fly away.

    Now is as good a time as any to encourage all of to become credentialed poll challengers. Call your county party and find out how NOW!

    You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)
  2. Corinthian Scales
    October 19, 2020 at 7:44 pm

    Was not disappointed when looking it up to see what would be responsible for publishing such vapid screed that it is a stereotypical Millennial soy boy. Honest question, do they issue those weenie glasses and manlet neck-beards to them with their degree?

    Anyhoo, Record-Eagle circulation rarely breaks 27,000 consistently so, in the big picture of things, 25% of the adult population might have even read that crap "Editorial." And, I'm being generous with that figure when looking at the percentage of geezers and their print-slave culture.

    Exit question: Does Alabama need a tax write-off? RSA's profitable holdings are real estate.

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.