When Scalia and the SCOTUS Struck: I've Always Wondered...

... whether this letter (and the one that came after the decision was handed down) got me on "the list."

:rofl:

In all those intervening years, I can't help but be disappointed at how little each of the three top candidates have done on election enfranchisement issues.

- Dave

************************************************************

December 9, 2000

Mr. David A. Smith
<address redaacted>
<address redaacted>
<phone redaacted>

The Honorable Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the United States of America
One First Street
Washington, DC 20543

Re: The Right of Suffrage in a Presidential Election Contest

Dear Justice Scalia:

With the utmost respect for the institution of the Supreme Court and for your contribution to it, I am writing to point out the fallacy in your suggestion that citizens do not have an individual right of suffrage in a presidential election contest.

I direct your attention to Section 1 of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was given full force and effect upon ratification on January 23, 1964:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senators or Representatives in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

In the context of ending Jim Crow, Congress explicitly articulated that citizens of the United States have a right to vote for electors for President of the United States.

I am a genuine admirer of the force of your intellect. I am often persuaded to see a new facet of an issue, and have even changed my mind, after reading your opinions and dissents. One of the things I admire most about you is that you seem to strive for a certain degree of intellectual purity of thought.

Therefore, I think it is particularly dangerous ground for you to tread when you suggest that no federal or constitutional question is implicated when complaints arise that – if substantiated – would mean that the rights of citizens of the United States to vote for presidential electors (and to have those votes counted meaningfully) have been abridged or denied by the action of a state official or body. While I agree with you that the concepts of federalism dictate that the federal judiciary must be eternally vigilant in refraining from making decisions better left to the states, I also believe that the highest court of the land should not refrain from acting as an appropriate guarantor of the right explicitly articulated in the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.

In short, if the Supreme Court fails to interpret Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution in light of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, it will have failed the nation as an institution.

I trust and pray that you and your colleagues will have the wisdom to craft a decision that takes appropriate judicial notice of the right articulated in the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.

The Court has my continued prayers and best wishes for continued good health and wisdom.

Respectfully yours,
/s/
David A. Smith

cc: The Honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice
The Honorable John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice
The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice
The Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice
The Honorable David H. Souter, Associate Justice
The Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
The Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Associate Justice
The Honorable Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice

... I tore into Scalia pretty hard for his convenient overlook when the published opinion came out.

- Dave

... not a peep, not even a roboletter thanking me for my interest in the workings of the Court.

Then again, they were probably inundated with mail.

But my eyes were wide open to Scalia after this (you can probably detect in the letter that I had already narrowed them into slits over something not being quite right).

It also put me on the trail of his son, who - as Solicitor of Labor, and in conjunction with Elaine Chao - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=enron+scalia+chao+%22state+street%22">hastened to appoint BushCo. Bank, State Street as the cover-up artist for Enron.

More on that to come with a Democratic Justice Department, and/or Waxman's Committee. Stay tuned.

- Dave