the irony - when an enemy turns into a friend
and a word of encouragement
Dear Friends,
I launched into a train of thought last night that took me somewhere I didn’t expect.
I decided to take another look at the statutes that govern the appointment of certain county election commissioners, namely 32-207, which conflicts with Article IX-4 of our Nebraska State Constitution.
Under Annotations for 32-207, I found this:
Because the Legislature did not intend election commissioners and chief deputies to be considered county officers, this section and section 32-209 are constitutional in light of article IX, sec. 4, of the Nebraska Constitution. State ex rel. Peterson v. Shively, 310 Neb. 1, 963 N.W.2d 508 (2021).
I loaded that Nebraska Supreme Court decision (in bold above) into a search engine. Now only did I find the terrible decision, I found an ally I didn’t expect—Adam Morfeld. (For readers outside Nebraska, Morfeld is far left.)
I stumbled upon this page that Morfeld put together that details the events leading up to the Court’s decision. I highly recommend you read it. Our former AG, Doug Peterson, wasn’t such a bad guy. He may not have argued completely well, but at least he was on the right side—i.e., the People’s side.
At any rate, I dropped a note in Civic Nebraska’s inbox last night. Here’s what I said:
to: info@civicnebraska.org
subject: the s-election of county election officialsTo Whom It May Concern:
I landed on this page of yours: https://www.civicnebraska.org/election-commissioner-faq/
I agree with your position. Governor-appointed county election commissioners in our three most populous counties puts way too much power in the hands of the governor, power that is taken away from the People of these counties.
Every county election official should be elected by, and accountable to, the People of the County.
Not only is this an Article IX Section 4 issue, it seems to me it is also an Article I Section 3 issue (equal protection) and an Article III Section 18 issue (local or special laws prohibited).
The People of our Counties are more interested in honest county elections than the governor is. A governor could easily be self-serving and partisan in the appointment of these three election commissioners, such that the "Honest Election Act of 1913" becomes nothing more than a pseudonym for the Governor's Re-election Act.
Counties are our primary political subdivision of state government. They serve to decentralize power and act as a check on the abuse of state power. In a compound constitutional republic, the People should choose their government at the federal, state and county level. Nothing is more important to that 'choosing' than an honest election official who is known by, and accountable to, the People of the County.
The Nebraska Supreme Court got it wrong. Just because a law has been in place for 100 years doesn't make it constitutional. How dumb.
Robert J. Borer
Then this morning, I decided to add an addendum:
to: info@civicnebraska.org
subject: Re: the s-election of county election officials (pt 2)Mr. Morfeld-
Please allow me to offer an addendum to my letter yesterday regarding the Nebraska Supreme Court's Peterson v. Shively decision.
Let me start by adding Article I-1 to the list of Constitutional issues with NRS 32-207 and NRS 32-211.
Again, in our constitutional republic, government is supposed to derive its power from consent of the people. That especially applies to the part of government that is supposed to administer/manage our elections. As you well know, honest elections are of the utmost importance to the security of self-government (government of, by and for the people) and the security of our "inherent and inalienable rights." For these reasons, the person in charge of governing our elections must come from consent of the people of our counties, as all elections take place at the county level.
The Supreme Court was myopic in Peterson v. Shively when it failed to evaluate NRS 32-207 and NRS 32-211, not only in light of Article IX-4, but also in the context of the WHOLE of our State Constitution, and especially in light of the first two foundational provisions, the Preamble and Article I-1, where "We, the people" establish the fundamental basis for, and purpose of, government, namely (and respectively), the consent of the people, and the securing of their/our rights (Article I-1).
Furthermore, in the Court's myopia, it committed a prima facie non sequitur. Just because the Governor has been appointing election commissioners "for more than a 100 years" doesn't mean the Legislature and Governor haven't usurped the people's power of consent for all those years. The people have no "settled understanding" as the court claims. The court is playing the sophist. Government keeps people busy with paying high taxes.
And why didn't the court answer the question, How were county election officials chosen in Nebraska before the establishment of our Constitution (the Territory of Nebraska had counties before statehood) and before the "Honest Election Law of 1913"? In other words, how were county clerks (whose job included elections) chosen before 1913? The answer to that question comes much closer to the "framers' intent" than the answer the court came up with.
In short, the Nebraska Supreme Court failed to arrive at an interpretation of We the people's Constitution that carries out the framers’ intent and purpose.
Contrary to the Court's concluding remark about AG Peterson's arguments, it is the Court's own arguments that are "without merit."
The Court has joined the Legislature and the SoS office in usurping the people's consent.
Thank you, Mr. Morfeld, for putting this page together: https://www.civicnebraska.org/election-commissioner-faq/
Robert J. Borer
Verbatim. That’s what I wrote.
Morfeld’s page is well put together and very interesting reading. I followed all the links and read it all.
To give some history, years ago, I would go to war with Morfeld on Fakebook. He’s a lawyer and was a state senator at the time. He was (and I’m sure, still is) opposed to Voter ID. He’s also all about mail-in voting. (So he’s not all that smart, or honest.) But I would openly taunt him for being such a “liberal,” who was all about buying votes from one group at the expense of another, mainly by promising benefits (Medicaid expansion, at the time) to the former group at the expense of the latter. Typical pseudo-liberal BS. Using government to redistribute wealth. It’s evil. He soon quit responding, because he had no argument against what I was saying. He was guilty as charged.
Anyway, moving on.
Last but not least, here’s a short encouraging video (13 min) for you from Juan:
Keep praying, fighting and speaking.
Robert J. Borer
P.S. Hit the top button —>
Minor word changes made.
I Have one of those signed jackets if you want to wear it to a commissioners meeting. I haven’t had the guts to. LOL!!