Federal Court now ok for disputed elections

UPDATES BELOW

Our local "dead voter" election between Ophelia Ford, a member of the powerful west Tennessee Ford political machine, and upstart challenger Terry Roland is starting to take on some parallels to the Bush-Gore 2000 election. Like Bush in 2000, the democrats have gone federal.

They used a quickie lawsuit filed by two live voters alleging federal voting rights violations, which enabled them to get a Ford family friendy federal judge to issue a restraining order stopping the State from vacating the election--one with proven voter fraud and only decided by 13 votes.

So, I'll take this as a new democrat endorsement for using the feds to decide elections. Back in 2000 we heard a cacophony from the left about how Bush was 'selected not elected', etc, etc. Many still trash Katherine Harris for just being alive. But suddenly it's not such a bad idea when the roles are reversed.

The difference here is that 2000 was a federal election, so it belonged in federal court. This is a state election and has no business in federal court. It matters little to the plaintiffs, since this is clearly a stunt designed to stop the state, now controlled by a republican majority, from doing the peoples' business.

If the final vote is allowed to proceed in the Senate the next move might be to charge racism or some other obsfucation. It's really just rank intimidation. I believe the Ford family truly thinks they're entitled to this seat, no matter how they get it. Sad, but all the writing on the wall supports that view.

MORE 1/26/2006

As most are aware, Judge Donald issued a one week stay indicating she would research the law and rule next Wednesday.

Here's the bottom line from the Commercial Appeal:

If she rules she has jurisdiction, she will then rule on whether voters' rights were violated.

Then she could issue an injunction that blocks the Senate from unseating Ford.

She's potentially got the hole outcome in her hands, and she's not even an elected member of Tennessee government, or even the Tennessee Judiciary.

All of this from a someone recommended by the candidate's brother. Other than the screaming conflict of interest buzzard flying around the room, everything looks above board.

WHAT IF? 1/28/06

What if Judge Donald rules for the plaintiffs here--in other words, rules that despite the proven fraud the state Senate cannot vacate the election because it would disenfranchise voters? Such a ruling would set several precedents.

One is that politicians might figure it would allow carte blanche cheating in future elections, knowing that if challenged they could fall back on the voting rights standard set by Judge Donald. Another is federal intervention in state election affairs.

On the flip side, a ruling against the plantiffs would indicate the judge is in no way beholden to the Ford machine. That would be refreshing, but certainly a long shot. Even if she harbors no IOUs to the Ford family whatsoever, the easy choice is a ruling for the plaintiffs. She knows the state would appeal to higher courts, effectively allowing her to wash hands of this racially charged case altogether.