By refusing to hear the final plea in the Elian Gonzalez case the Supreme Court finished the term with another deplorable batting average in the democratic game of the republic. Castro's Communism came away with an easy victory over the principles of American freedom. But what else could we expect when the game was rigged by tyrannical government officials and their socialist cohorts in the media who warped the American mind.

    Indeed, democracy and independent voters didn't fair much better. The 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2000 found that California's 1996 Proposition 198 changing the State's partisan primary election from a closed primary to a blanket primary is unconstitutional because it violated political party's First Amendment rights of association.

    Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion saying, "The Court's holding is... plainly wrong...I am convinced that California's adoption of a blanket primary... does not violate the First Amendment..." Stevens was joined by Justice Ginsburg in concluding that, "The State's power to determine how its officials are to be elected is a quintessential attribute of sovereignty. This case is about the State of California's power to decide who may vote in an election, and paid for, by the State..."

    The only thing unconstitutional about the primary election and general election process is the two-party system's absolute control. Indeed, the "system" not only controls elections, it controls the presidency, the Congress, and every state governor and legislative seat.

    Nearly everyone in America knows that, except, it seems, the Chief Justice and 6 associate justices of the United State Supreme Court. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia concluded that NONE of the State of California's interests in "...producing elected officials who better represent the electorate, expanding candidate debate beyond the scope of partisan concerns, ensuring that disenfranchised persons enjoy the right to an effective vote, promoting fairness, affording voters greater choice, increasing voter participation, and protecting privacy -- is a compelling interest justifying California's intrusion into parties' associational rights."

    Nonaffiliated, independent voters comprise a larger, and growing, number of voters than either the Democratic Party or Republican Party. Independent voter's tax dollars pay a substantial amount of the cost of primary elections. Yet independent voters have no First Amendment or voter rights to choose candidates with any chance of being elected President of the United States, Senator, Representative, Governor or State Legislator, unless they are Democrat or Republican.

    Our entire society recognizes the domination of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. "D" or "R" always appears before elected official's names. Votes in Congress and state legislatures are counted by Democrat or Republican and all their business is conducted along party lines. The Constitution says nothing about political parties. Independents and other political parties are not represented. Certainly, there must be an equal First Amendment right of nonassociation.

    The Court's decision also struck down blanket primaries in Washington state and Alaska but left Louisiana's "nonpartisan" blanket primary intact. But the decision does not affect "open primaries" of about 20 states where voters can decide on election day which party primary in which they wish to participate. At least Justice Scalia specifically endorsed the constitutionality of the nonpartisan primary system.

    Still, the Court wrongly placed political party rights above state's rights, individual citizens and nonpartisan voter rights. Political parties have every right to form and have freedom of association. However, the two dominant parties do not have the right to control elections and government as they've done for so many years.

    Indeed, the miserable affects of the two-party system's political terrorism and media-driven chaos is clear and convincing evidence that government and all elections should be nonpartisan.

    America is hurting but can't seem recognize the terminal depletion of democracy. The consolidation of government power in Washington is dangerously overwhelming. The Supreme Court has systematically usurped power from the states and the people simply because life-term justices have been blinded by power and seduced by the pursuit of judicial legacies.

    As a concerned citizen and independent voter, last year I filed a petition with the Supreme Court to break the two-party system's grip on elections and government, which, if granted, would make all elections and government nonpartisan. The petition (98-8918) was flatly denied without explanation.

    I filed a second petition (99-9563) this year adding several more reasons for the Court to grant the petition. Ironically, the second petition was denied June 26, 2000, the same day the Supreme Court knocked down California's blanket primary.

    Alas, it is discouraging to believe the "Court of last resort" lacks the judicial courage to do the right thing for a Cuban boy who lost his mother in the pursuit of freedom from tyranny, nor for the people of the United States of America who lost another round of democracy to power politics.

    But democracy cannot be deterred even when it is egregiously violated by government every day. It's time for the people to decide. And I am preparing an appeal for the Court to reconsider. I cannot leave my family or my fellow citizens with any less.

Daniel B. Jeffs, founder
The Direct Democracy Center