Take it to court
September 28, 2009
Everyone seems to agree that the ballots in last May’s city election should have been thoroughly shuffled instead of just “cut” a few times, to remove even the hint of suspicion that secret voting might have been compromised. Since we cannot change the past, our only recourse is to determine who, if anyone, was injured by this apparent oversight and to make appropriate restitution for any such injury.
In our society the entity that is responsible for making such determinations is the courts. If someone believes that he or she has been injured, justice can be sought by suing for damages. If the belief is that a broad class of citizens has been injured, a class-action suit is the appropriate response.
If Attorney Millard Zimet believes that he or a class that he represents has been injured by the non-shuffle oversight, he should know his legal options. His apparent avoidance of legal action is evidence that he thinks he has no case, or at least that he has not been damaged significantly.
If anyone really believes that the “oversight” was in fact a deliberate act on the part of election officials, the honorable response would be to file appropriate charges, rather than to conduct a whispering campaign of innuendo, as I believe losing ex-candidate Marilyn Marks and others have been doing.
I’m puzzled by Marks’ belief, expressed to me after last week’s City Council meeting, that avoiding use of the courts is a desirable, even admirable, approach to the conduct of public affairs. In fact, the courts have been responsible for many advances achieved in our society. Prime examples are Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Or are these not considered advances in the circles Marks identifies with?
Recommended Stories For You