A commenter writes, apropos the Ninth Circuit vote-swap decision:
What bothers me most about this case is that it gives the impression of a case decided to give the political result the judges favored, not on the basis of the legal arguments Eugene uses. The most blatant example of this is the majority’s argument that the vote swapping scheme would not alter the electoral college results. The example they give is of a state in which the electorate is divided 49 percent for Bush, 48 percent for Gore, and 3 percent for Nader. They argue that if all the Nader voters engaged in a vote-swap scheme, and Gore won, that would be the proper result. I can’t imagine the judges taking such a benign view of a vote-swapping scheme if the names and parties were reversed, and if the scheme led to Bush’s winning a state he would otherwise lose.
I’m not that persuaded by such arguments generally — but especially not when (as another commenter wrote), two of the judges were Bush, Jr. appointees. I can’t say how conservative they are, but it’s hard for me to casually assume that they were Gore enthusiasts.