Burt Likko

I filled out my absentee ballot to vote in California’s June primary yesterday. California has recently adopted a “jungle primary” law, in which all candidates from all parties appear on the primary ballot for most political offices. The two top vote-getters compete in a runoff election in November. I noticed that this did not apply to the Presidential primary — I only got one party’s slate of candidates.

It did apply to the election for U.S. Senator. There was an entire page of candidates, seemingly two-thirds of whom were Republicans, all randomized and taking up an entire sheet of the ballot book. “Confused” would understate my response. The cluttered, random mess that is the jungle primary has earned the ire of both lefties and righties in California as well as those who, like me, are disaffected with both flags. And it is simultaneously a symptom of the dysfunction of politics here in the Golden State, and a factor which will aggravate rather than mitigate the inability of Californians to govern themselves.

Continue reading this post…

{ 33 comments }

This is a post about separation of powers and the proper scope and exercise of Presidential authority, Congress’ ability to attempt to direct the exercise of that authority, and a strange attempt by Congress to use its power of the pursestrings to arrogate judicial powers for itself. It is not, or at least does not have to be, about same sex marriage. Article II, section 3 of the Constitution states that the President “…shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and when he (or, within our lifetimes, she) assumes office, the Constitution mandates that the President of the United States recite the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Consider now the “Huelskamp Amendment,” named after its author. This is a rider on a completely unrelated piece of legislation that if ultimately passed, would bar the use of appropriated government funds in the Department of Justice for uses in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act, such as the fifteen-month-old decision of the Obama Administration to decline the opportunity defend DOMA’s constitutionality in court. This is among the most bizarre political gambits I’ve ever heard of.

Continue reading this post…

{ 38 comments }

Fellow Ordinary Gentleman Elias’ earlier erudite essay has indeed been OBE, exactly as he predicted. In the linked video, the President describes undertaking a personal journey of opinion not unlike mine, which was one of thinking of that civil unions were just as good to realizing that indeed they were not, that nomenclature and the social prestige associated with the word marriage matters. And it’s pleasing to see the President finally modifying his position to one which conforms more closely to my own.

While it might have been more pleasing to see this move as leading rather than following the polls, and Elias’ political calculus seems exactly right — waffling on the issue would cost Obama with his base, while this new plank of his political platform will really only upset people who are unlikely to vote for him anyway — we ought not let the imperfections blur the fact that this is good news. Continue reading this post…

{ 63 comments }