Voting Constitutionally
Rejecting Pragmatism in the voting booth
by Rick Jore
Liberty Forum
Summer 2006
The November 2004 election ended the sixth campaign that I have been involved in as a candidate. I have been on the ballot every two years for the Montana House of Representatives since 1994; three times as a Republican and three times as a Constitution Party candidate. I have learned some things about voters in that time. Most vote purely pragmatically. After the 2004 election in House District 12, there are some who wish they had rejected pragmatism and voted their principles. A long story made short:
I was the Constitution Party candidate for HD 12, along with a well- known Republican businessman and a Democrat who two years earlier came within 35 votes of winning a seat on the County Commission.
Election day results had me winning by two votes over the Democrat. A mandatory recount resulted in a tie vote. Statutory law in Montana establishes that in tie votes for a seat in the legislature, the Governor makes the appointment. After some legal wrangling by the Democrats (they tried to contest the election directly with the Supreme Court and by-pass the statutorily established procedure) the Governor appointed me to the seat. Interestingly enough, the winner of HD 12 would determine which Party controlled the House as the count was 49 Democrats and 50 Republicans.
Immediately after the appointment, the Democrats contested the election, challenging several so-called "double-marked" ballots that had been counted for me. Incidentally, the two votes that the Democrat gained during the recount were "double-marked" ballots. There were also other "double-marked" ballots counted for her and in virtually every other race in the County. The law requires that ballots must be counted if intent of the voter can be determined and agreed upon by a majority of the election board. (13-15-206, MCA)
To contest an election, Montana law requires that the winner be named as the respondent. I did not count the ballots, I had no authority or influence over how the ballots were counted and recounted, I did not violate any laws or campaign ethics, and yet I was being sued for winning an election!
The District Court ruled that the recount board had followed the law and upheld the election results. The judge also ordered that the plaintiff (a Democrat activist) pay attorney's fees since she initiated the action. The Democrats immediately appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
A month and a half after the election and four days before the start of the legislative session, the Supreme Court issued an "order" stating that "one or more" of the contested ballots were invalid, thereby granting the seat to the Democrat. The Court did not issue a written opinion stating the reasons for their decision (required by the Montana Constitution) until 80 days later when the legislative session was more than half over. Five of the seven contested ballots were ruled invalid with no ruling on the other two. Incredibly, the Supremes also ordered that I must pay the attorney fees of the Democrat, some $16,000.
We had paid our own legal fees while waiting for the Supreme Court to issue an opinion. I rejected the notion that I should pay the legal fees that the Democrats had incurred to challenge the election and my conscience would not allow for anyone else to pay them on my behalf. The Dem attorney, with a court order, confiscated some $600 from my bank accounts and has up to 10 years to collect the rest, with 10% interest annually, even to the extent of liening my personal and real property. Almost two years later, I am still in contempt of court and I will not acquiesce to this injustice.
Recently, a prominent County resident stated to me "I voted for the Republican because I didn't think you could win" as he wrote me a check for my current campaign. A common response during door-to-door campaigning in 2004 was "We need you in office but I don't think you can win. I have to vote Republican." Or "why don't you run as a Republican. You would easily win if you wouldn't split the vote."
Through the years, I have attended dozens of candidate forums, filled out numerous candidate surveys, and talked to literally thousands of voters. Not one time have I been asked what I think should be the first question for any candidate for political office: "What is the purpose of civil government?"
An elementary understanding of the Bible or the Declaration of Independence provides an easy answer to this question: "To protect the righteous and punish the wicked" (Rom. 13) or "To secure our unalienable rights" (Declaration) or in short, "To uphold and enforce justice by protecting the life, liberty, and property of individuals."
As a candidate, I have often asked voters the very questions that they should be asking me: "Where do our rights come from?" "What is the source and purpose of law?" "Shouldn't candidates understand the Constitution, since they will be bound by oath to uphold it if they win?" "What is an oath?" "How can government give something to anyone unless it first takes it from someone else?" "What is 'the general welfare'?"
When a candidate does not understand the God-ordained purpose of civil government, they cannot fulfill the obligations of office. If voters do not understand this purpose, we surely will not get elected officials who do. When two candidates are on the ballot, we have at least three choices, candidate A, candidate B, neither candidate, or in some cases, a write-in line. If we vote for "the lesser of two evils," we are endorsing, condoning, and perpetuating illegitimate, unconstitutional government. Leaving a ballot blank in any particular race is a vote that is as legitimate as voting for a candidate. (Be aware that candidates/politicians take note of total ballots voted as compared to total votes cast.)
Christian voters must discern the physical manifestations of the spiritual battle we are in, never losing sight of the fact that all legitimate authority is ordained by God (Rom. 13) and given to Jesus Christ (Matt. 28). Certainly, candidates that condone, endorse, or advocate any assumed or usurped authority that violates life, liberty, or property is not worthy of our vote, even if that candidate is, comparatively speaking, "conservative."
Obviously, we are up against an evolutionary, secular humanist worldview that is entrenched in our societal mindset. An evolutionary worldview blinds people to the fact of absolute Truth. That is why secularists have a great love affair with Democracy. In a Democracy, "truth," "ethics," "justice," and "law" can evolve with the ever- changing whims of the fickle majority.
I contend there can be no "rule of law" (in the proper sense) in a Democracy because there can be no absolutes recognized in democratic law. The only consistent conclusion of an evolutionary worldview is anarchy, there being no transcendent foundational basis for authority of any kind except, of course, raw power and brute force. (Humanist Manifesto II not only calls for the separation of church and state but also "the separation of ideology and state." It does not acknowledge or recognize that every law is based on ideology of some kind.)
A definition of pragmatism that I came across some years ago has stuck with me: "Pragmatism is the convenient conclusion reached by those who lack the patience and the intellect to come to a consistent ideology." Pragmatism and moral relativism go hand in hand. There can be no "consistent ideology" if there are no absolutes. Christians, of all people, should have a consistent ideology. We simply must apply basic Biblical principles in our philosophy of government (and every other area of life), otherwise we are doubleminded and unstable.
Three terms in the Montana legislature convinced me that pragmatism rules politics. We suffer the consequences of this daily with unauthorized, unconstitutional laws and taxes. I have concluded that we will continue to suffer this despotism as long as we vote pragmatically.
Howard Phillips has said: "Your vote is the currency of your virtue." We could see surprising results if we begin to apply virtue in the voting booth and reject the convenience of pragmatism. Our elected officials may become worthy of the title "honorable" once again.