Judicial activism not sought exclusively by liberals
Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009I recommend the Michael Kinsley piece this week on the hypocrisy of some folks who decry judicial activism.
Here in Minnesota we have the example of Andy Cilek, spokesperson for the Republican “Minnesota Voters Alliance,” who sought judicial activism to overthrow the will of the citizens of Minneapolis. These citizens voted 2 to 1 to adopt ranked choice voting in Minneapolis elections.
Of course Cilek will say that the citizens didn’t understand what they were voting for. Actually that could be said for any election. Many if not most votes are cast for people the voters don’t know or for initiatives they don’t understand. But it is perfectly appropriate for someone to vote based on recommendations of people, parties, or organizations they know or trust. You don’t have to understand the nuances of single transferable vote to know that it is a good system.
The Minnesota Supreme Court will shortly resist the temptation of judicial activism, and will find that there are no constitutional grounds to prevent Minneapolis from going forward with ranked voting.
Another example of a plea for judicial activism comes from Norm Coleman, who is hoping that the Minnesota Supreme Court applies the equal protection standard to elections in a way that has never been done before.
Arguments to invoke the Constitution in order to nullify legislation come from left and right. “Judicial activism” is bad–unless it isn’t.