Since the great 1964 Supreme Court case of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 553, the rule in American elections (except in the case of U. S. Senate elections) has been "One person, one vote." But is that rule fatally undermined by a second rule that allows individuals, corporations, unions and PACs to make virtually unlimited "campaign donations" to candidates seeking election and re-election?
It is difficult to imagine a more eloquent and incisive explanation of the importance "one person, one vote" to a democracy, than the court made in Reynolds.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint contending that the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature resulted in a denial of "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The district court found that "Population-variance ratios of up to about 41-to-1 existed in the (Alabama) Senate, and up to about 16-to-1 in the House. Bullock County, with a population of only 13,462, and Henry County, with a population of only 15,286, each were allocated two seats in the Alabama House, whereas Mobile County, with a population of 314,301, was given only three seats, and Jefferson County, with 634,864 people, had only seven representatives."
The district court said plaintiffs were denied equal protection "by virtue of the debasement of their votes since the Legislature of the State of Alabama has failed and continues to fail to reapportion itself as required by law."
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision stating: "Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections.... It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote ... and to have their votes counted. ... The right to vote can neither be denied outright, ... nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, ... nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. ... And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."
Citing its previous opinion in Gray v. Sanders, the court said, "How then can one person be given twice or ten times the voting power of another person in a statewide election merely because he lives in a rural area or because he lives in the smallest rural county? Once the geographical unit for which a representative is to be chosen is designated, all who participate in the election are to have an equal vote -- whatever their race, whatever their sex, whatever their occupation, whatever their income, and wherever their home may be in that geographical unit.
"This is required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The concept of 'we the people' under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications. The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favor of one of several competing candidates, underlies many of our decisions.
"Continuing, we stated that 'there is no indication in the Constitution that homesite or occupation affords a permissible basis for distinguishing between qualified voters within the State.' And, finally, we concluded: 'The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing -- one person, one vote.'"
The court added, "'We found further, in Wesberry, that 'our Constitution's plain objective' was that 'of making equal representation ... for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal ...' We concluded by stating: 'No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.'"
The Reynolds decision unequivocally states:
-- The right to vote granted by our Constitution "can mean only one thing — one person, one vote."
-- The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the "essence of a democratic society."
-- Any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government;
-- And the right of suffrage can be denied by a "debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."
But there is a problem. Corporations, unions, PACs and very wealthy rich people can use their money to change the result of elections. Consider the effect of negative TV ads. A candidate atop the polls on Monday, can be at the bottom a couple days after the negative ads hit.
I may have one vote, just like George Soros, or Donald Trump. But their money -- like corporate, union and PAC money -- gives them power to influence voters to vote for the candidates they favor and against the candidates they oppose, that neither you nor I could ever hope to possess.
A friend of mine, a good attorney and lifelong Democrat, recently told me that the "system is broken, and cannot be fixed." I agree with him that the system is broken. But I still think it can be fixed -- but, only if something drastic is done.
Unless limits are placed on what individuals, unions, corporations and PACs can donate to candidates and incumbents anticipating re-election, all is lost.
The obvious solution is to set a "safe limit" (so small that no reasonable person would see it as an attempt to buy influence, and so small that no candidate or office holder would cast his vote in consideration of the donation).
Additionally, allow these "small, safe" donations only to come from individuals.
But if you feel compelled to allow unions, corporations, PACs and other entities to contribute, limit their contribution to the maximum one individual can give.
Individuals can join political parties, and vote for the candidates of that party. But they still must each cast their individual ballot. Freedom of association does not give them the right to "bundle" their vote.
The same must be true of political donations.
No person or entity can be allowed to bundle cash donations. Once bundling is allowed, bushel baskets of campaign donations drown out the voice of individual voters.
Unless something can be done to prevent candidates and office holders from taking donations in sums which appear to the public, the candidates and the officerholders to be large enough to give the appearance buying influence, I would have to agree that "things cannot be fixed."
Posted Online: Jan. 11, 2012, 3:31 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment