http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On March 13, the 9th circuit refused to rehear Porter v Bowen, 06-55517. Last year, the 9th circuit had voted 3-0 that a past California Secretary of State had no authority to try to shut down an internet site that let Gore voters in “safe” states pair up with Nader voters in “swing” states. The purpose of the internet was for two strangers to “meet” and make a promise to swap their votes, to the mutual advantage of both.

Last year’s decision, upholding the right of such internet sites to exist, came down on August 27. Now, over six months later, the 9th circuit has refused to rehear the case. Only one judge of the 9th circuit wanted to rehear it. He is Judge Andrew Kleinfeld. He wrote an eleven-page dissent from the denial of rehearing. It ended, “If people in one state want people in another state to vote a particular way, they can go there and ring doorbells, send them letters, buy ads on their media, publicize arguments on the internet, and otherwise explain to them why they ought to vote a particular way. But they do not have a constitutional right to buy their votes, with money or promises.”

Which part of the Constitution and its amendments describe what rights the government enshrines on us? Trick question. The Declaration of Independence + Constitution work within negative rights/liberty theory. Judge Andrew Kleinfeld apparently has never read the document he’s sworn an oath to defend. Besides… who exactly would be the victim in this case?