In The Midst Of The Ethics Session
It’s been well over a week since the Tennessee Senate, voting as a committee of the whole, voted to nullify the results of the special election that put Ophelia Ford, sister of the indicted former senator she replaced, into office. Yet, despite an original intent to conduct a final vote of the Senate acting as the Senate to officially ratify the resolution two days later – and expel Ms. Ford from the Senate – said vote has not been held, and Ms. Ford remains Senator Ford.
Really, no one should be surprised that this is the case. Ms. Ford being a Democrat and all, it was only logical to expect her to file a federal lawsuit to try to stop the Senate from exercising its constitutional role as the final judge of the election of its members. After all, trying to win in the courtroom what they cannot seem to – legitimately – win at the ballot box has become standard operating procedure nationally for the party that now finds itself in the minority in Tennessee’s Senate.
At issue is the fact that the thirteen vote margin by which Ms. Ford defeated Republican Terry Roland is easily exceeded by the number of votes that evidence indicates were fraudulent. A bipartisan Senate panel has already unanimously agreed that nine of the votes in question were illegally cast. And a four vote margin of victory in an election that features, at the very least, another thirty ballots with the forged signature of a poll worker on them is hardly an election in which an observant citizen can have confidence.
In defense of the election, Senator Ford’s attorney is arguing that to void the election would infringe upon the equal protection and due process guarantees for her and her supporters, who he claims would be disenfranchised, as well as violate the Voting Rights Act. The sentiment expressed in this defense seems to be that “errors” are a fact of life in elections, and the system should learn to live with them, even when they are clearly identified.
It continues to be a significant trait of the Democrats to be champions of defending the “equal protection” rights of those who either aren’t honest enough, or responsible enough, to see to it that they actually have a right to vote where they show up to vote – a “protection” that seems to take precedence over the protection of those who do go through the process honestly and/or correctly.
As for the “due process” that is called for in determining the results of an election to a given legislative body, the actions of the Senate up until the intervention of the federal judge are precisely the “due process” called for by the State Constitution – as is the case in most, if not all, state legislatures as well as the United States Congress.
But constitutional means of holding power, such as winning elections, have not been producing the results that Democrats would like in, among other places, the Volunteer State, where following the 2004 elections they found themselves as the minority party in the Senate for the first time in 140 years. And while it is true that any political party is, and should be, interested in increasing its own ranks among elected officials, Democrat Senator Steve Cohen’s attempt to engage in misdirection – another popular Democrat tactic of late – by saying that the desire for more Republican Senators is all that’s driving the movement to void the election in Memphis makes less sense than simply acknowledging that upholding the election would only further erode the already low level of confidence that Tennesseeans have in their legislature as an institution. It is helpful to note here that this all takes place in the midst of a Special Session on Ethics called in response to the recent arrests and indictments of several members and former members of the General Assembly.
At this stage, Republican Majority Leader Ron Ramsey remains confident that the case brought by Senator Ford against her colleagues will be thrown out. Perhaps justice will prevail, but the fact that the judge in question is a Clinton appointee who received her job at the request of the Ford family will probably cause other conservatives to feel a bit more nervousness until the verdict is rendered. But hope will spring eternal.
Really, no one should be surprised that this is the case. Ms. Ford being a Democrat and all, it was only logical to expect her to file a federal lawsuit to try to stop the Senate from exercising its constitutional role as the final judge of the election of its members. After all, trying to win in the courtroom what they cannot seem to – legitimately – win at the ballot box has become standard operating procedure nationally for the party that now finds itself in the minority in Tennessee’s Senate.
At issue is the fact that the thirteen vote margin by which Ms. Ford defeated Republican Terry Roland is easily exceeded by the number of votes that evidence indicates were fraudulent. A bipartisan Senate panel has already unanimously agreed that nine of the votes in question were illegally cast. And a four vote margin of victory in an election that features, at the very least, another thirty ballots with the forged signature of a poll worker on them is hardly an election in which an observant citizen can have confidence.
In defense of the election, Senator Ford’s attorney is arguing that to void the election would infringe upon the equal protection and due process guarantees for her and her supporters, who he claims would be disenfranchised, as well as violate the Voting Rights Act. The sentiment expressed in this defense seems to be that “errors” are a fact of life in elections, and the system should learn to live with them, even when they are clearly identified.
It continues to be a significant trait of the Democrats to be champions of defending the “equal protection” rights of those who either aren’t honest enough, or responsible enough, to see to it that they actually have a right to vote where they show up to vote – a “protection” that seems to take precedence over the protection of those who do go through the process honestly and/or correctly.
As for the “due process” that is called for in determining the results of an election to a given legislative body, the actions of the Senate up until the intervention of the federal judge are precisely the “due process” called for by the State Constitution – as is the case in most, if not all, state legislatures as well as the United States Congress.
But constitutional means of holding power, such as winning elections, have not been producing the results that Democrats would like in, among other places, the Volunteer State, where following the 2004 elections they found themselves as the minority party in the Senate for the first time in 140 years. And while it is true that any political party is, and should be, interested in increasing its own ranks among elected officials, Democrat Senator Steve Cohen’s attempt to engage in misdirection – another popular Democrat tactic of late – by saying that the desire for more Republican Senators is all that’s driving the movement to void the election in Memphis makes less sense than simply acknowledging that upholding the election would only further erode the already low level of confidence that Tennesseeans have in their legislature as an institution. It is helpful to note here that this all takes place in the midst of a Special Session on Ethics called in response to the recent arrests and indictments of several members and former members of the General Assembly.
At this stage, Republican Majority Leader Ron Ramsey remains confident that the case brought by Senator Ford against her colleagues will be thrown out. Perhaps justice will prevail, but the fact that the judge in question is a Clinton appointee who received her job at the request of the Ford family will probably cause other conservatives to feel a bit more nervousness until the verdict is rendered. But hope will spring eternal.
posted by JeffreyH | 9:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home