 |
THE CORE
Fruits & Votes is the Web-log of Matthew S. Shugart ("MSS"), Professor of Political Science, University of California, Davis.
Perspectives on electoral systems, constitutional design, and policy around the world, based primarily on my research interests. Also experiences with growing many varieties of fruit (always organic) and other personal interests. Please see the Mission Statement for more. (There is also an explanation of the banner.) Other "planters" have been invited to contribute. Please check the "Planted by" line to see the author of the post you are reading.
Join the conversation. Comments are always open. Except, that is, when Word Press mysteriously shuts them down, which happens with distressing frequency. Core principles: Henry Droop on the "moderate non-partisan section" Madison on "dangers from abroad" and "the fetters... on liberty" The Head Orchardist's other sites: PRESERVED FRUIT Dikes and Votes: Consensus government and flood control The 2008 candidates on political reform More fundamental than the climate The radical middle in US democracy Canada's dysfunctional electoral system The Hamas sweep: The electoral system did it
orchard blocks
|
19 November 2010
A ruling by the Tokyo High Court may lead to reform of the electoral system for the Japanese House of Councilors, the second chamber of the Diet. On the other hand, the Court can’t seem to make up its mind just how troublesome malapportionment is, or how much is too much. Manichi Daily News has some details. Propagation: Seeds & scions (2) 01 October 2010
A big, much anticipated, judicial ruling was handed down in India earlier today in the Ayodhya dispute. From the Hindustan Times:
The case is likely to remain unsettled for years if there is an appeal (as expected) to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there are already political reverberations in Bihar, one of India’s largest states and one where voting begins in state assembly elections later this month. The Ayodhya issue–specifically the 1992 destruction by militant Hindu nationalists of a Mosque built in Moghul times on the site Hindus claim as holy–was one that helped propel India’s main opposition party, the BJP, to prominence. One of the BJP’s partners in the National Democratic Alliance (which governed India from the late 1990s until 2004) is the JD(U), a party in Bihar that needs Muslim votes. Propagation: Seeds & scions (0) 28 February 2010
The Constitutional Court of Colombia has blocked the planned referendum that would have opened the path to President Alvaro Uribe running for a third term. This is a major benchmark (so to speak) in the maturity and institutionalization of Colombian democracy. I had long thought the third term ultimately would not happen, but my confidence in that expectation had been badly shaken as the process came this close to permitting the referendum. The new president will be elected in May (or June, if a runoff is needed). Congress is elected in March, and there will be campaigns for various parties’ presidential candidacies, some of which will be decided in primaries concurrent with the legislative elections. Much more at PoliBlog (Steven is leaving for some field research in Colombia rather soon; great timing, Steven!). Propagation: Seeds & scions (4) 08 July 2009
Greg Weeks notes that documents pertaining to the case against the Honduran President have finally been posted on line. Supporting suppositions I have articulated here since the military coup, Greg notes that nowhere in the documents does he find any accusation regarding an intent by Zelaya to seek reelection. And there is the laughable claim that the court had to order the military to detain Zelaya because he was a threat to flee! Much more at the link above, as well as an earlier post at Two Weeks Notice. Propagation: Seeds & scions (0) 27 May 2009
Shame on the California Supreme Court for, by a 6-1 vote, caving. This ruling was entirely expected, of course. It was probably even constitutionally correct, which only reinforces the need we have been discussing for an entirely new constitution. While the argument that the reversal of a Court-granted right contained in Proposition 8 amounted to a a “revision” rather than an amendment to the constitution always seemed a stretch, its failure to convince the Court reveals the deeper problem: under what model of “good government” can a majority of voters (which might be a quarter or so of registered voters) trump the highest court of the jurisdiction when the issue at hand involves the rights of minority groups?* There was a time when this state had a reasonably well deserved reputation as progressive. Now it has fallen behind various New England states and Iowa in the most important civil rights issue of the 21st century so far. Indeed, although the Court claims that those marriages performed in the brief era between the first Court ruling and Prop. 8 remain legal, in fact they have been placed in an illogical second-class, and hence potentially vulnerable, position. ________ Propagation: Seeds & scions (13) 25 December 2008
A recent “tug-of-war,” as the Hindustan Times puts it, over judicial appointments in India reveals the superiority of nomination/appointment processes that put the executive second, rather than as initiator, in the process. For India’s Supreme Court–one of the most active constitutional review bodies among the world’s high courts1:
“President” here refers to the “mostly ceremonial” head of state2 and “government” refers, of course, to the federal executive cabinet, headed by the prime minister. Note that the first mover in nominations is a judicial “panel” (the details of which are not clear to me) and the executive only responds. This sort of process has long appealed to me as a preferable reform model for the US Supreme Court. And while I am not aware of a process of this sort ever having been seriously proposed for the US Supreme Court, it is not as “foreign” to American judicial practice as it may seem. In fact, several US states have moved to broadly similar reform models in recent decades.3 Recounting the “tug-of-war,” the HT says:
And thus did an attempt by the federal executive to shape the highest court fail. _____ 2. Chosen by an electoral college made up of federal and state legislators. 3. Florida is one such case. I distinctly recall the (presumably willful) mis-characterization of the Florida Supreme Court after its ruling demanding a recount in Bush v. Gore: It was widely pointed out that the court’s majority was appointed by Democratic Governors. Technically correct, but not in the sense most American readers or listeners would understand it, for the Florida court is not appointed in an executive-initiative process like the federal one. Rather, like the Indian process, a judicial panel forwards nominees to the Governor, who may reject a proposed justice, but not initiate his preferred alternative. It so happens that right now in Florida, there is an apparent attempt by the Governor to influence the judicial nominating process that has echoes of the Indian case. Propagation: Seeds & scions (1) 02 December 2008
Some years ago I coauthored some work on the concept of ‘superintendence’ agencies, understood as non-elected institutions that provide “horizontal exchange.” The agencies provide checks on the executive and legislature that go well beyond the more typical constitutionality determinations by courts (rejecting laws or decrees, for example). Instead, superintendence agencies substitute for gaps in the “vertical” relationship between voters (the ultimate principal in a democracy) and their elected agents. The basic idea behind the design of superintendence institutions seems to be an attempt to answer the question: but what happens when the voters themselves choose “bad” agents–those who violate election laws and other constitutional and legal provisions that are meant to ensure “good government.” There has been quite a proliferation in recent decades of such agencies, including evermore powerful electoral commissions (whose authority extends well beyond mere administration of elections), independent prosecutors, human rights ombudsmen, counter-corruption commissions, and the like. Several superintendence institutions were created in recent constitutional overhauls in Colombia (where they are operative) and Venezuela (where they mostly are not), among other countries. However, perhaps nowhere has the concept of superintendence gone so far as in Thailand’s constitutional innovations of 1997. This is all a long set-up for a question for the readers: Can anyone identify another case where an unelected institution–other than armed forces, of course–has dismissed a sitting chief executive? This just happened in Thailand:
I covered the election at the time: click the country name in the “Planted in” line to see them. Propagation: Seeds & scions (6) 20 November 2008
The California Supreme Court has granted a hearing on the challenges to Prop 8, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry. Four of the seven justices voted with the majority in the original ruling overturning the state’s previous voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage. Of these four, one voted against yesterday’s 6-1 decision to grant a review of the challenges to Prop. 8. In other words, of the six to vote to grant a review, half were in the previous ruling’s minority. That breakdown of the votes for further review is probably not good news to proponents of equal marriage rights. We won’t know till well into next year, as the hearing is scheduled for March. Propagation: Seeds & scions (0) 16 November 2008
Some signs suggest the State Supreme Court will grant a review of Proposition 8, which took away the right the same court granted earlier this year for same-sex couples of marry. The case petitioners are seeking to argue before the court is that the proposition amounts to a “revision” rather than an “amendment” to the state constitution, because it strips a fundamental right. I am no legal scholar, so I won’t pretend to assess the legal value of that argument. However, with the decision so recent, and 4-3, and with California justices subject to periodic retention elections (and potentially subject to a recall-election petition), I would not put good money on their being willing to insist on their earlier decision and overturn the measure. Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he believes courts should allow same-sex marriages. And then there will also be the legal question–if Prop. 8 is not overturned–of whether the marriages performed between the time of the Court’s ruling in spring and the fall election would remain valid. Yet another interesting angle is that the state’s Attorney General, Jerry Brown, is a proponent of inclusive marriage rights, but his job title would require him to defend the state’s newly enacted constitutional amendment stripping that right if it comes before the court. Propagation: Seeds & scions (1) 30 November 2006
The panel of the High Court reviewing a petition from The Movement for Quality Government in Israel to demand a State Commission of Inquiry on the summer, 2006, war in Lebanon, rejected the petition in a 4-3 vote. As Haaretz reports, the Justices nonetheless criticized the government for creating a much weaker panel to review the actions leading up to and during the war, which the petitioner sought to replace with a more independent State Commission:
Propagation: Seeds & scions (0) 13 July 2006
Regarding the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF), Mexican political scientist José Antonio Crespo notes:
Indeed. (Roughly translated: In 2000, validating the election was as easy as passing kindergarten. In 2006, it will be like defending one’s doctorate.) So, what is this body that now has the resolution of Mexico’s electoral dispute in its hands? It is a judicial body of last resort, charged with resolving election disputes and nothing else. Its Higher Chamber (Sala Superior) consists of seven magistrates who serve ten-year terms, expiring this October. (There are also five regional Salas of three members each.) The terms of TEPJF magistrates are non-renewable. The body was established by the 1996 electoral reform (a constitutional amendment), and its members are elected by two-thirds vote of the Senate, from a terna, or list of three names (per vacancy), presented by the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court justices themselves, since another constitutional reform in 1994, are also elected by a two-thirds vote of the Senate from a terna sent by the President, and serve for fifteen-year, non-renewable terms.) The first TEPJ Sala Superior (which thus is the current one) was actually required to be elected by three fouths of the Senate, and in fact, all votes on these magistrates were unanimous. In other words, the upcoming case is no Bush v. Gore. Additional notes: El Universal has a short profile of each magistrate. Some are career judges, others are academic law professors. The TEPJF itself has an English-language page that explains its role and also offers profiles of the magistrates. It is worth noting that the Tribunal is sometimes referred to as the “TRIFE,” after the name of the tribunal that was in place in the early 1990s. The older acronym, often written Trife, is still used, presumably because “Tepjf” is not pronounceable! Propagation: Seeds & scions (3)
29 June 2006
UPDATE: Thanks to Steven for noting (in a PoliBlog scion grafted below) that the Democratic majority of the House delegation from Texas after 2002 was actually a reversal of the electoral majority. Republicans had 53% of the statewide votes, yet only 47% of the Texas House seats. In that sense, indeed, the 2004 outcome, despite being almost 2:1 Republican, is a more accurate reflection of the votes (58-39, or about 1.5:1 R). So, the old plan was fundamentally flawed and should have been thrown out. Nonetheless, the real thrust of my argument in this post (and as amplified in my comment below in response to Steven) was not that one partisan gerrymander was worse than another. Procedurally, the two Texas districting plans were equally bad, even if the more recent one is actually less substantively flawed. Rather, my argument was, and is, that the more recent one in Texas has the potential effect of protecting a precarious right-wing House majority from adverse national vote swings, and that was clearly its intention. And a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has said that is just fine. Partisan assignment of voters to districts, and partisan adjudication of the process. It’s a travesty of democracy. I don’t want to let the attention given to the Bush administration’s apparent defeat in the Hamdan case completely drown out the far more important victories that opponents of democratization and electoral reform won in two earlier Supreme Court decisions in the past week. The other two cases both affect the fariness of elections, and thus the essence of democracy itself. They are, in that sense, vastly more fundamental than the question of military tribunals–which the executive may find ways to continue anyway–important though the latter issue is. The striking thing about the two election-related decisions is that in one case the Court overruled a state legislature and in the other it upheld one. Thus there is no common federalism or states-rights thread here. The Court said that the legislature in Vermont over-stepped its authority in limiting campaign contributions, and thereby accepted the principle that the wealthy have “freer” speech than the rest of us. In the Texas redistricting case, on the other hand, it said that it is perfectly all right for a state legislature to produce a partisan-biased districting plan–even mid-census–and thus further entrenched the principle that politicians should choose their voters rather than the other way around. It is obvious that the Texas legislature’s act has far more impact on those of us outside of the state in question than does the Vermont act. The Republican party would not have gained seats in 2004, despite losing votes relative to 2002 (and falling below 50%), had it not been for the Delaymandered districts in Texas. Thus the actions of the Texas legislature not only affect the representation of all Texans (something which the archaic theory of democracy apparently still prevailing in this land might permit) but ultimately affect the representation of all of us (something no theory of democracy ought to admit). The now-overturned Vermont law, on the other hand, would have limited impact on those of outside Vermont. Sure, if it were to spread nationwide–beyond the friendly confines of the home of Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean–it would have dramatic impact, to the immense benefit of ordinary voters. The Court nipped that in the bud. The common thread of these two cases is support for the further entrenchment of right-wing political forces in this country. If there was any doubt that the US Supreme Court is continuing to assert its role as a bulwark against the advance of democratic representation, these cases should lay such doubt to rest. It did not matter whether the justices had to act to uphold or overturn a state decision; what mattered was acting to buttress the power of those who already have it. Regarding the Hamdan case, I can’t help but wonder if Bush-Cheney will find a way to defy or override the very institution without which they would not have had their first term in order to continue prosecuting–as they alone see fit–the “war” on which they won their second. Balkinization has an interesting take on how the government may respond:
Would that the Court really would force democracy, but that’s a fantasy. Nonetheless, Balkin makes a very important observation about putting the whole issue back in the hands of Congress. Is the issue of oversight of the “war” on “terror” something that will make the Party of Power sufficiently squeamish in an election year that they will not act to effectively reverse the Hamdan decision? Or will the Democrats be the squeamish ones, with the Party of Power holding yet another issue with which to drive home the claim of their own indispensibility in keeping us “safe”? The Court, with Hamdan, may have handed down a third decision in one week that will assist the right electorally. Note: The link to the Balkinization post is actually a link to the blog itself, because when I tried it, the post permalink was not working. Propagation: Seeds & scions (4)
28 February 2006
For the first time in Canadian history, the government’s choice to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Judge Marshall Rothstein, faced questioning by a legislative committee. New Prime Minister Stephen Harper, leading Canada’s new Conservative minority government, is on the record believing judges have assumed too much power over public-policy decisions, and had pledged to institute a public hearing for court appointees. So, this means Canada is instituting judicial-appointment procedures like those of its neighbor to the south, right? Hardly. Although Rothstein was originally appointed to the Federal Court in 1992 by Brian Mulroney, a Tory Prime Minister, he was later elevated to the Federal Court of Appeal by Jean Chrétien, a Liberal. More importantly, he was already on the short list of Supreme Court nominees assembled by outgoing Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. In other words, unlike in the United States, a ‘conservative’ chief executive is not asserting a right to appoint partisans to the highest court. This is a consensual nominee. The hearing was before an ad hoc committee of the lower house, rather than a standing committee of the upper house, as in the USA. Another aspect that is different from the USA is the nominee’s age, 65. When, like the current US executive, you are packing the court with your partisans, you want your appointees to be relatively young. A more common practice in parliamentary systems, on the other hand, is to appoint relatively more senior judges to the highest court. Being older, they have a clear track record, they will not serve long (in fact, Canada has a mandatory retirement age of 75), and there is less chance that the Court will fall far behind shifting popular sentiment, as reflected in the democratic process. On that latter point, Rothstein said in his hearing:
Of course, Alito said similar things. But no one who has been paying attention should see Alito’s remarks as anything other than a ruse. Past Canadian practice has been for appointments to be simply by cabinet decree, with no public scrutiny. Harper’s innovation–taking a senior judge who has been vetted by both major parties, and having him answer questions in the lower house of the legislature–is a remarkably sane way to appoint a Supreme Court justice. Propagation: Seeds & scions (5) 29 January 2006
Planted by MSS
Planted in: Judiciary Go to Keeth Poole’s Voteview and scroll down to the link for “recent politics.” The short story is that the predicted vote is 56-44. And, yes, alas, that is in favor, but note that it would be a closer vote than many of the early reported whip counts implied (60+ in favor). And, as one of the contributors to the project said to me in private communication, the closer the vote is to party-line, the less interesting is the enterprise of predicting the ultimate vote based on early announcements and knowledge of senators’ spatial-voting record! For Roberts, the model predicted 69 votes. He got 78. Eleven senators were wrongly predicted, which is not bad. The prediction for Alito is likely to be even more accurate, I suspect. They also have a prediction for Monday’s cloture vote: 67-33. My previous plantings and rantings can be found at my page of excerpts and links to posts on the three recent Supreme Court justice nominations. Propagation: Seeds & scions (1) 08 January 2006
Planted by MSS
Planted in: Judiciary [NOTE: I have several posts on Alito, and all of them may be viewed on one page by going to my judiciary subdomain. ] I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks by Scott Lemieux on Sunday (in part, reiterating an earlier post of his); emphasis is mine:
Propagation: Seeds & scions (0) |
FRUIT FEEDS
PROPAGATION
Recent comments.
CROSS-POLLINATION
FRUITS
The Fruit Blog (Fruit & fruit breeding)
Comparative democracy Electoral Panorama World Elections African Elections Database M. Herrera's Electoral Calendar Electoral Geography (Data archive) Michael Gallagher's data archive Election Finance (Blog, data archive) IFES Election Law (Rick Hasen) VoteLaw (Edward Still) Ballot Access News Electoral and Political Reform The FairVote Blog (US)
Blogs of political analysis PoliBlogArms and Influence (dormant) Outside the Beltway Political Science Weblog (abstracts) Ideological Cartography (Adam Bonica) Frontloading HQ (Josh Putnam) FiveThirtyEight Vote View (Keith Poole) The Monkey Cage A Plain Blog About Politics (Jonathan Bernstein) Political Arithmetik (dormant) Polls & Votes Pollster.com Polysigh Reflective Pundit Rustbelt Intellectual Simon Jackman The semi-presidential one Josep Colomer Chapel Hill Treehouse (dormant) Political Behavior (dormant) Dart-Throwing Chimp Countries at the Crossroads (Freedom House blog) Jacob T. Levy REGIONAL ANALYSIS
The Mace
Centre for European Politics
Bloggings by boz
Informed Comment Global Affairs
Frozen Garlic (Taiwan elections) OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCE BLOGS
Crooked Timber
CURRENT MOON NEWS ORGANIZATIONS Center for Voting and Democracy Californians for Electoral Reform SCION EXCHANGE
Bloggers who link or comment here (if not listed elsewhere on this page)
Afbau Ost HARVESTS
If by my laws you walk, and my commands you keep, and observe them,
May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005
ORCHARD SERVICES F&V time: This blog's date function is so set as to start a new day at approximately local sunset. (Why, if we have "day" and "night," should a new "day" start in the middle of the night?) FRUITS: Support your local, organic growers; and, plant vines and fig trees and pomegranates for the generations to come...
VOTES: For democratization and full representation, for environmental sustainability, social justice, and peace, always sincerely... |
Powered by WordPress