Today I received in my email--rather unexpectedly, since I couldn't even get a vague timeline on when it would come--the decision on the challenge of Dr. Daniel Sosin as a registered voter of Washington State, by Stefan Sharkansky.
For a brief introduction to the Sosin case, check out Part One of my review filed here, and for an overview on my thoughts and discoveries about the merits of the case, look here. For a view from Sharkansky's perspective, he sourly notes the ruling here, and from there he links back to his own history on the matter.
To cut to the chase, Logan denied the challenge. As he put it, the central issues were two: did Sosin validly establish his right to vote, and does he have the right to keep it now that he's left Washington? Sharkansky seemingly grants the second half, but wants to use the first part of the Constitutional clause to claim that Sosin could not have legitimately been considered a resident and thus could not be registered, because he was only in Washington on assignment.
But as we discovered, what you have to do be eligible to vote is very basic:
All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and who have lived in the state, county, and precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote, except those disqualified by Article VI, section 3 of this Constitution, shall be entitled to vote at all elections. [A6S3 says you can't be judged incompetent or a felon.]
What Sharkansky tried to do for Logan was paint a picture of all the things Sosin did to indicate he was going to live elsewhere, but offered little advice on why Sosin shouldn't have been registered in the first place. Even that job was hampered by the fact that Sosin was still on assignment, and hadn't really been afforded the opportunity to choose. That's really the entire point of the Servicemember Act law and the clause appearing in the Washington Constitution--if you're working for the military services and you have to leave a state, they can't cancel your stuff while you're gone.
Since Sosin had complied with all of the Constitutional requirements for voting, that would have gone a long way towards slamming the door shut on Sharkansky already. But a detail came out in the judgement that I had not heard before: Sosin acquired a WA state driver's license within 30 days of arrival (and who obeys that deadline?), and maintains it to this day. Logan notes that under questioning, Sharkansky did acknowledge that he knew Sosin had a WA DL.
It's at this point that I fully grasped how much of a waste of time this exercise truly was. It fairly boggles my mind that Sharkansky took the time to bring this to a hearing and force a judgement, when he knew that Sosin had undertaken one of the classic signs of residency--getting a driver's license. As I said, based on the Constitution he didn't even need to do that, but the DL is the nail in Sharkansky's coffin. When he built a case that required making the subjective determination that Sosin wanted to live in Georgia, he left himself vulnerable to counterevidence, such as a consistent voting record and maintenance of the primary form of resident documentation in any state. Once the subjective assessment Sharkansky had created was undermined by those facts, the case was over. I'm not sure whether Logan laughed or simply shook his head as he wrote the decision, and it marks the second time in a month that legal counsel have bloodied Sharkansky's "common understanding" of the law. Logan even cites Sharkansky's method in the decision:
The Challenger twice made reference to a "layman's understanding" of case law in support of the challenge, but no cases were cited or decisions submitted for consideration in this matter.
Whatever the day job is, don't quit it for legal work, 'Challenger. '
Interested readers also might want to check the comments at SP on the ruling; not a few visitors sided with Logan and wisely advised him to find more fruitful targets. Unfortunately, like Rumsfeld's view of Afghanistan, there just aren't many good targets to hit.
--TJ
TJ,
Thank you again for the great work. I want to tell you to keep up the good work but how can I? You aren't getting paid and you don't even live here.
So thanks, thanks, many thanks and if you grow tired of covering this in debacle in WA, please continue to drop by HA - your comments and input are highly valued there as well.
Posted by: John | March 16, 2005 at 11:34
I, too, thought it a long shot, but, in my case, I had hoped he prevailed.
Why would someone with zero ties to Washington maintain a Washington Drivers' License?
Trying to get some of that home-cooking subsidies by not paying local income tax? Don't you have to also get a license from the State you live in. How does he get checks passed when he has to give ID?
There is so much wrong with this that it astounds me. But, like they say, "rules are made to be broken".
Posted by: swatter | March 16, 2005 at 16:38
I don't see what's wrong, Swatter. Servicemembers get moved around, so they are afforded the ability to choose their residency. For voting, he has chosen WA, and he's done nothing to undo that choice. Leave him alone.
Posted by: Torridjoe | March 16, 2005 at 16:42
I suppose you are right. I just wish everyone were an informed voter in local, which includes State, elections. I know of people who vote by which name they like the best, so I suppose someone living in Georgia has as much of an informed vote as the others I just mentioned.
Sometimes I just wish the world were perfect.
Posted by: swatter | March 17, 2005 at 07:40