IRV unconsitutiona;?

[Rob Lanphier]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Anthony Simmons wrote:
> Fortunately, the courts rarely fall for it.  Unlike the rest
> of us, who can pretend, the courts must give undiluted
> precedence to reality.  If Mike were to take such an argument
> to court, he would end up sitting next to the guy who is
> arguing that Texas is still and independent republic.

Actually, assuming that the courts would have such a "common sense"
attitude is *not* a safe assumption.  However, I agree with Anthony....for
all of our sakes, I hope that the court would take "one person, one vote"
to mean "one person, one ballot".  If the opportunity arises, we should
encourage legislatures to use "ballots" in ballot access laws to ensure
that this remains the case.

Regardless, this discussion seems to have unnecessarily become a flamewar.
Flame-utio ad adsurdumb.

Rob
----
Rob Lanphier
robla at eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla