In Louisiana politics this year, perhaps the only
thing more inevitable than a Republican Jeff Landry gubernatorial victory was
the Louisiana
Supreme Court denying an appeal of lower courts’ decisions rerunning the
Caddo Parish sheriff’s contest. By contrast, successfully picking a winner in
the Mar. 23 faceoff is very much evitable, an exercise that will be determined
more by forces outside of the contest than the campaigning and dynamics within
the parish.
After the Nov. 18 runoff, Democrat former
Shreveport police chief and chief administrative officer Henry Whitehorn led Republican
former city councilor John Nickelson
by a single vote. However, a district court found enough irregularities under
law to order another election, and the Second Circuit agreed. This week, the Louisiana
Supreme Court ratified that with its action.
Given the undisputable proof and wording of
Louisiana law, as was the case with the appellate court. the only real question
was whether the non-Republicans on the Court would try to bring the matter to a
potential reversal. Once again, they tried. Democrat Assoc. Justice Piper Griffin
voted to hear and in a dissent
essentially repeated the same objections made by the dissenters at the
appellate level: elections with illegal ballots have these sanitized into legal
ones if the unrealistic laws in place to challenge these can’t be followed. No
party Chief Justice John Weimer provided
a further rationale in his for
empowering tainted election results and dispensing with common sense by saying
procedures to overturn certified election results should be onerous, if not
unworkable, such was the sanctity of the process compared to the desirability
of judicial intervention.
Arguments which Republican Assoc. Justice James Genovese
easily slew in his concurring
opinion:
In a two-candidate race, the mere fact that one
candidate ends up with one or more votes than his opponent, without regard or
consideration given to proven fraud and unqualified voters casting ballots,
does not equate to a just and fair election under our law and jurisprudence. A
just and fair election can only be had when one candidate wins by a majority
vote of qualified electors ….
… this election was not a free and fair election.
A one-vote margin of victory supported by clearly established eleven
unqualified voters cannot be said to constitute a fair election.
What is fair and essential to the candidates and
the electorate, and to preserve election integrity, is to have a new runoff
election with a winner decided by qualified voters.
As clear-cut as the case for a new election was,
who will win is anything but. The date is significant in that it will coincide
with the state’s presidential preference primaries, which for both parties will
come later rather than sooner in the national delegate-collection process.
This means the most
likely outcome of that process would be both nominees – almost certainly
Democrat Pres. Joe Biden and Republican
former Pres. Donald Trump –
mathematically will have been decided by then, leaving little on the ballot to
generate enthusiasm for the mass public and lowering turnout for all partisans.
The next most likely scenario is that Biden has things wrapped up, but that
Trump still hasn’t sealed the deal although it may be only a matter of time.
Less likely still is neither has unassailable leads, and the least of all that
Trump has secured the nomination but Biden hasn’t.
Reviewing
the general and runoff elections this fall, Nickelson did better the higher
the turnout. Reviewing those turnout figures with past Louisiana presidential preference
primary turnouts under the varying competitive environments, this means if the
GOP’s nomination remains in doubt, he will have the edge; otherwise, Whitehorn
likely does, all things equal.
Money initially seems to be. Nickelson
plunked down $565,000 throughout but held only $16,000 at year’s end. Whitehorn
spent only $140,000 and raised nothing after the general election, but has
$50,000 banked. Nickelson likely can outraise Whitehorn, but the latter seems
to be able to gather enough to offset the former’s advantage.
Yet Whitehorn has a better rallying cry to
mobilize partisans, regardless of exogenous turnout factors or money. Look for his
campaign to trot out some version of he was robbed of a win, coupled with the
race card played in some diluted version that stands the best chance of mobilizing
his largely black voting base. Note that as soon as the news of the Court’s declination
came out, he
began going very negatively against Nickelson and his supposedly favored treatment
by the courts, and earlier
he alleged, using a racial dog whistle, that prospective voters in the
runoff supporting him needed to vote “Because Your Life May Depend Upon It.”
It may well work. Excepting that one scenario
where the GOP presidential nomination remains somewhat competitive, the turnout
cards are held by Whitehorn. Nickleson will have to come up with an excellent
strategy to outplay those.