Monday, October 24, 2005

Uniting My Hatred For The Special Election And An Elected Judiciary

Via Election Law Blog, a bit of an op-ed (password protected link available through ELawBlog, above) on some of the lesser known mischief inherent to Prop. 73:

Hidden toward the end of the nearly 3,000-word initiative is the requirement that each court publicly report annually "by judge" the number of petitions granted and denied in the trial and appellate courts. Thus, if Prop 73 passes, every judge and appellate justice in this state who rules on a minor's petition for a waiver of parental notification will have his or her own abortion scorecard.

It is not difficult to see the mischief that these annual reports could cause. Advocacy groups on either side of the abortion debate could (mis)use a judge or justice's scorecard during contested superior court elections, appellate court retention elections, or even judicial recall elections. It is not far-fetched to imagine a campaign flier proclaiming that Judge X or Justice Y "ordered the killing of 10 unborn children last year," a statement, incidentally, that would not be far from legal accuracy since another thing Prop 73 would do is define "abortion" as "caus[ing] the death of the unborn child."
Wow - so 73 defines abortion AND gives us a new and nifty way to run judicial elections? FANTASTIC! Sure glad this is on the ballot.

Get your coathangers, law dictionaries, and law signs quick!

At least 73 excepts contraceptive drugs and devices. Phew. Guess loose, godless women don't have to worry so much about an attack on their rights after all.

Read the text here.

No comments: