By Jason Schwalm
Nominee for the State Senate in the 37th District Virginia Woodward brought Republican candidate Dana Seum Stephenson to court regarding the November election. Ms. Woodward, roughly 1,000 votes behind Ms. Stephenson, nevertheless claimed that the Republican should not be seated because she did not meet eligibility requirements.
Although, according to The Courier-Journal, “Two judges have since ruled that Stephenson does not meet the constitutional requirement of living in Kentucky for six years before the election,” this has done nothing to stay the hand of the state Senate’s republican majority, led by President David Williams. Meeting quickly for a vote, the state Senate claimed the power to overturn the court’s ruling and confirm Stephenson’s seat. She attended IUS, was licensed to drive, registered to vote and owned a home in the state of Indiana during three of the requisite six years. But the Senate felt comfortable approving her. Apparently, “she intended to make her home in Kentucky.”
I was born in 1982, but perhaps I should contact the Kentucky House of Representatives and inquire about entry on the ballot for the 2006 election, since I intend to reach the constitutionally mandated age of 25 sometime during my term.
In fashion typical of the present moment, Republican pundits and pedants somehow attribute all of this to judicial activism. A shibboleth for displaying conservative political values, “judicial activism” is currently shorthand for any ruling a judge hands down that the right doesn’t agree with.
Somehow the back-channel memo written by President Bush’s appointee for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, that sought to narrowly redefine torture to exclude all but the most vicious and terrifying of physical abuses is not such an example of such activism. True, Gonzalez’s memo did not result from a court ruling. Nevertheless, judgements that circumvent or outpace legislation have still been necessary in furthering the agendas of individuals and groups on both sides of the political spectrum. If we are going to start a fist fight over separation of powers, let’s first make sure everyone’s wearing gloves.
On Friday, the court again ruled that Stephenson was ineligible. However, Senate republicans seem intent on pushing her claim for membership.
Party infighting has already begun. Republican state Senator Leeper of Paducah, after closed-door meetings with party leadership during which he threatened to resign, has stated that he will serve the rest of his term as an Independent, citing Republican mismanagement of the Senate.
Despite all this, there are much broader considerations than the political cost of forcing this issue. The state constitution should be more enduring than an obstinate senate’s whim. And bad business sets a bad example. What are high school civics teachers supposed to tell their students about the workings of democracy? That there are rules, but they are only applicable to those who don’t have a senate majority?
Somehow these questions are understood as ones of partisanship and not precedent, but the party victory can’t be worth the long-term drawbacks. The Bench was created so that a body of legal thinkers who are not beholden to king and country could exist in cooperation with the more politically minded legislature. The senate majority can’t attack the judiciary every time they don’t get their way. It’s called checks and balances – or should we stop teaching that concept in civics class as well?
With their frequent plaintive cries of “judicial activism,” its amazing that conservatives don’t realize the hypocrisy of calling liberals whiners. If they have their way, we will all operate with the ethical logic of a school playground: whenever somebody breaks the rules, only the crybabies will have anything to say about it.
Jason Schwalm is a junior majoring in English and a columnist for The Cardinal. E-mail him at: [email protected]
