Subject: Re: [EL] Rose Bird, the death penalty, & redistricting
From: Jon Roland
Date: 11/2/2010, 10:21 AM
To: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Reply-to:
"jon.roland@constitution.org"

Nevertheless, it was not the redistricting decision that was why the voters voted not to retain Bird, and therein lies the problem of subjecting judicial decisions to popular election, and points to the inadequacy of that method to enforce constitutional compliance. We can consider such methods as having juries composed of constitutional scholars review appellate court decisions, with the power to overturn judgments against individuals in contests with government, but it is not obvious how one could qualify the jury pool to be constitutional scholars without policy bias.

On 11/02/2010 11:55 AM, Douglas Johnson wrote:

The campaign against Bird focused on the death penalty, in part because voters were outraged and in part because that's what polls showed would work. But the original planning to oust her was organized in response to her redistricting decision in 1981.

-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322              Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001                   jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------