Enforcing Baker v. Carr

Baker v. Carr is a Supreme Court case which dealt with the makeup of the Tennessee State Senate. The state constitution provided for a body with 33 member who represented fixed geographic districts in a similar manner to the fixed geographic boundaries of the states. That is, its structure was analogous to the that of the U. S. Senate. A voter from Shelby County, then the state’s most populous, sued because the senatorial districts hadn’t been adjusted for over 50 years, and some were much more populous than others. The State argued that the matter wasn’t justiciable and none of the judiciary’s business. The Supremes said, “Oh yes, it is,” and remanded the case for further proceedings. A bit later, the Supremes ruled in another pair of cases that such redistricting must be done on the principle of “one man, one vote.”

Thus, it seems that one could argue that each vote in the same district should weigh equally with every other, and this brings us to one of the claims being made with regard to fraud in last month’s election. It’s being reported that one investigator believes he has found evidence Democrat votes were more heavily weighted than Republican votes in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The scientist noted that there were only two things that could explain that improbable result.

He admitted that there could be a demographic within the Independent voters who voted for Biden that that he could not see in his model.

“Another possibility is that Mr. Biden’s votes were simply multiplied by 1.3, meaning each single vote Biden received became 1.3 reported votes,” Shiva explained. “And President Trump’s votes are reduced by that 0.3 or 30 percent gained by Mr. Biden. Simply put, you could call this vote swapping.”

Shiva testified that he believed Dominion voting machines have a weighted voting feature that would allow a Democrat candidate to receive 130 percent of the vote and for the Republican to receive 7/10ths of the vote.

“The more important thing to understand is our votes are stored not as whole integer numbers but as decimal fractions,” he explained.

It wouldn’t be that hard to audit the counting software and the databases. Why doesn’t Dominion want to prove to the world how trustworthy their voting systems are? Why don’t the Democrats want to prove they won the election fairly?

The Gentle Reader may form his own answers to those questions.

BTW, Charles Baker was a Republican.

“Shooting a Possible”

Target shooters refer to putting all 10 shots into the Ten-Ring of the bullseye as “shooting a Possible,” i.e,, achieving the best score one can.

There were 27 house seats that the “experts” rated as toss ups in the recent election. Republican won every one of them—not 10 out of 10, 27 out of 27. There was no blue wave, except in a handful of urban areas where logistical failures related to stocks of preprinted votes caused delays in ballot counting.

The Week Ahead

These days, I’m only cleared for local rumor, so I’m not sure about the reliability of the various hints, leaks, and innuendos swirling around the legal challenges to the questionable vote counts in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona. However, I’m probably safe in predicting that while all those case won’t be settled this week, we will see actual hard news about them that will be interesting.

BTW, when the Biden family began working with Chinese investors, did anyone inform them of the Chinese curse that goes, “May you live in interesting times!”?

Immigration, Arizona, and the President

Say, isn’t the Supreme Court about to rule in the Arizona immigration law case? You know, the one about the law requiring Arizona cops to verify whether someone has the right to be in the country.

Let’s say that Arizona wins. Wouldn’t “legalizing” a whole bunch of illegal immigrants “protect” them? Is that part of what’s going on? Is Barack Obama thumbing his nose at Arizona (and possibly the Court)?

Your Argument Is “Not Selling Very Well”

When the Solicitor General gets that feedback from a liberal Justice (Sotomayor), you know he’s having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Arizona v. United States did not seem to go well for the Obama Administration today.

Ed Morrissey concludes

If the White House loses their challenge to the most controversial part of the law, expect the Left to go after Verrilli again as they did after his difficult day defending ObamaCare.  He may have performed better this time, though, at least on the secondary issues.  And once again, the problem was less with Verrilli and more with the administration’s positions that Verrilli had to defend.