The MassGOP lawsuit to stop permanent mail-in voting is more interesting than you might think.
The state’s Republican Party Chairman, Jim Lyons, has taken a very weak outfit and turned it into an exceptionally incompetent one that is now engaged full-time in garden variety “lib trolling,” an activity that hasn’t been as useful for party fundraising as Lyons, a former state representative known for his estrangement from reality, hoped it would be. One of Lyons’ knee-jerk trolling tactics is to support lawsuits that challenge pretty much anything supported by Bay State Democrats and the R.I.N.O. governor. These are usually the kind of frivolous slap suits that Lyons probably hopes will make his idol proud, but the lawsuit challenging legislatively enacted permanent mail in voting is a bit different.
As I was recently reminded by a very keen observer of Massachusetts politics, ten years ago the MassGOP position on mail in voting was essentially the party line… the Democratic Party line that is. Until very recently, the Democrats that have run the state house with veto proof legislative majorities for three decades happily went along with the notion that permanent mail-in voting would require a constitutional amendment. For them, increased voter turnout is an unnecessary risk, until it isn’t. Support on Beacon Hill for the VOTES Act is driven as much or more by the sound political judgment of professional politicians as it is by the principled commitment of democratic reformers.
The SJC’s consideration of this lawsuit is particularly interesting because it is happening amidst the US Supremes’ assault on 20th century US constitutional interpretation. The plaintiff’s argument would undoubtedly be compelling to the present US Supreme Court majority, but it is unlikely to be convincing to the Justices of the Bay State’s High Court. The Republicans bringing the suit have little to gain and nothing to lose. If they win, they get a symbolic victory, if they lose, they get more grist for their lost cause crusade against the “radical liberals” who run the Commonwealth.
Ironically, the progressive activists pushing hardest for expanded access to the voting booth might benefit most by the opportunity a GOP win at the SJC would provide them to bring this issue to voters at the ballot box. On the other hand, Beacon Hill leaders, beneficiaries of the least competitive state legislative elections in America, would much rather concede this ground legislatively, take the credit, and move on.