<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><div>Hello Jameson,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for your thoughtful response. I REALLY like "first step" actions. May I post this on aGREATER.US as its own unique policy? </div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Jon</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>you wrote...</div><div><<</div><div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; ">For me, the universal rule I would start from is: the right to vote and to have that vote counted if possible. </div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; "><br></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; ">This right is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution; the closest it comes is "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". In an Luther v Borden, an 1840 case in which reformers in Rhode Island were arrested for trying to organize a state constitutional convention (!), this clause was held to be outside the purview of the courts — which puts it directly under the purview of the legislative branch. This interpretation was upheld during Reconstruction and after.</div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; "><br></div><div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; ">Congress could therefore pass a law saying "Each citizen has a right to vote, to have that vote counted, to have the voting process be free of fraud; and that the public has a right to verify these rights are upheld. Voting rules which circumscribe one of these rights are acceptable only if they proportionally increase another of them." >></div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Jameson Quinn <<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a></a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div>For me, the universal rule I would start from is: the right to vote and to have that vote counted if possible. </div><div><br></div><div>This right is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution; the closest it comes is "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". In an Luther v Borden, an 1840 case in which reformers in Rhode Island were arrested for trying to organize a state constitutional convention (!), this clause was held to be outside the purview of the courts — which puts it directly under the purview of the legislative branch. This interpretation was upheld during Reconstruction and after.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Congress could therefore pass a law saying "Each citizen has a right to vote, to have that vote counted, to have the voting process be free of fraud; and that the public has a right to verify these rights are upheld. Voting rules which circumscribe one of these rights are acceptable only if they proportionally increase another of them." </div></blockquote><div></div></div><div><span></span></div></body></html>