About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

25 Alaska B. Rag 1 (2001)

handle is hein.barjournals/askabar0025 and id is 1 raw text is: B U Inside: * CHANGING TRENDS IN JURIES * E-FLING IN THE FEDERAL COURTS * THE LATEST ON SUDNOTEBOOKS . A . . ...................... . * KETCHIKAN BECKOInOU~ ORS KQnlAK VOLUME 25, NO. I Digniltas, semPer dignltas $3.00 JANUARY - FEBRUARY, 2001 Tea with the Chief II The Court confronts votarian mechanics in election of 2000 By Pci n Asci witnimaicn II lert readers will remem-ber from my article in the November-December i~sue that the British had come to America for io s and don't's in setting up a British Supreme Court. From the tight little islands, the British had found in our Supreme Court a continental Fenwick, a Grand Duchy of self-sufficiency, a Ilimlico into which a pass- port was demanded at the froptier. So the British asked their how to questions, with whys left begging an audience. The historic practice of the appellate committee of the Law Lords isn't all there is to the cat's meow if you've got to redo things so that not every issue goes on to Strasbourg. Americans assume that their national dignity is immune from such insult; so we can revel in whys and wherefores. And when the nation's Chief Justice says we reconsider no decision atthe behest of partisans, andlosers tobeot, the luxury isoursto enjoy. In his September interview, Chief Justice William Rehnquist told me and my two British colleagues that, if there was a significant disagreement with a court decision across the beard - truly across the beard in society - that the justices would listen and consider rethinking their decision, but he also told us that this hardly ever happened. It's not the royal perogative, remarked one of our trans-Atlantic visitors, in the bright sunlit plaza after our tea with the Chief. That's the nice thing about history; they're making it fresh every day. By December the Supreme Court had an opportunity to do what the Chief Justice told us that they try to do, which is to persuade. The events of December also tested the condition subsequent that the Chief Justice added. Any signifi- cant disagreement against an opinion would have to be nonpartisan before thejustices would have cause to rethink their position. Bush v. Gore,orBush H1, put the negative side of the equation into play. Ifa majority of the court decides an issue in favor of one party, such as an election, the losers are partisans because that's who's in elections in the first place; these partisans are 'losers, because the court makes them so. Bush's case enlightened Americans on these points: there is no federal constitutional right to vote for presidential electors; there is only such right as may be granted by a state legislature. If the state legislature messes up votarian mechanics so that a loser asks for too few or too many recounts, then whoever has the most votes wins without judicial review. And since the loser is a partisan, the loser would have no standing to ask the court to rethink its position. Jefferson announced this sacred principle, that ... the w ill of the majority is in all cases to prevail. lIe was speaking of the election of 1800 and the follow-on election contest that extended for weeks into the next year. The occasion was his First Inaugural Address and it is commonly supposed that his remarks were directed to votarianisin yielding power in the legisla- tive and executive branches to the majority. But then, Jefferson didn't live through the contested election of 1876 in which the judicial branch added its weight to the electoral scales for Tilden to lose and Ilayes to win. The British academics have yet to weigh in on this one; but, to hazard a guess, it is doubtful that their Supreme Court will decide closely run elections, since Continued on page 32 Survey says most lawyers are online A statewide Alaska Bar Association survey on the use of Internet tech- nology by Alaska's legal com- munity has shown thata sig- nificant percentage ofrespon- dents are online and actively using the Web in their prac- tices. The mail survey was con- ducted in November as part of a Bar program to provide CLE information online. The 30-second Technology Sur- vey was distributed to de- termine connection speed, browsers used, and other ca- pabilities attorneys have for accessing CLE materials online. The Bar also has launched a three-month pi- lot project to test response for Internet-delivered courses (see related article on page 24). A total cf 518 attorneys returned the survey, with all but four reporting that they are ronnected to the Internet. lltre are the results: Are you connected to the Internet? No 4 Yes 514 Are you connected (check all that apply): Both 427 Home 20 Work 68 Continued on page 32 P.O. an 10673 ArAhsrs@@,ma9K10~40 U S. Pop P.ld P.m4 N. 401 Anmhomsp, AlWMl *e#e1e#### 0 ## # #-MIXED ADC 995 l 1 0 il

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most