in the Sixth Circuit, since a 500-foot circle seems to contain “750,000 sq. feet.” Such a circle actually contains pi x 500 x 500 = about 785,000 sq. feet, assuming the polling place is a dimensionless point, and a bit more for polling places that have length and width themselves (if the polling place, for instance, is 40 x 40, then the circle would contain about 850,000 sq. feet).
OK, OK, it’s an approximation, so it’s not such a big deal. Still, mathematical calculations are among the few places where courts can make things accurate, objective, and uncontroversial — why not take advantage of that? (Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer to the case.)
UPDATE: Reader David Chesler comes to the Sixth Circuit’s defense. The court, he points out, wrote “Accordingly, for urban voting places in Kentucky, the 500-foot barrier does create 750,000 sq. feet of silence.” Technically, that’s true: It does create 750,000 sq. feet of silence. It also creates another 35,000+ sq. feet of silence on top of that. Fair enough!
Likewise, the court’s statement about the exception for private property — “Appellees therefore argue that at voting places surrounded by private property, electioneering may occur within 500 feet, thereby obviating what would otherwise be 750,000 sq. feet of enforced silence” — accurately reports that the exception would obviate 750,000 sq. feet of enforced silence, though it would also obviate 35,000+ sq. feet more. (I assume that the court is endorsing the appellees’ calculation here, not just quoting it.) Every court should have a defense lawyer like Mr. Chesler, I say. Still, I continue to be a bit peeved by the court’s discussion.
FURTHER UPDATE: I think this calls not for a Petition for Rehearing, but for a Petition for Recalculation.
Comments are closed.