A Great Author, Who's Largely Unknown

PLEASE HELP ME. I know I’m stupid in some ways.  I’ve been proven smart in others.  One problem with that comes when everybody disagrees with you and you try to figure out who is right.  In Mark Twain’s “Puddinghead Wilson” the hero arrives at a town and is immediately considered a puddinghead because of a remark he makes in jest.  He stays, but only at the end is his intelligence shown.  On the other hand, in “Poor Superman”, a story by Fritz Lieber, the title character believes he is capable of great ideas, which, to the reader, are clearly worthless.  In my current project I’d like to know if I’m being stupid, or is my idea valid.  I’d greatly appreciate your opinion.

In that project, I have tried, unsuccessfully so far, to advance a certain position, namely, jury duty, like paying taxes, is an important obligation we owe our country, when applicable, but only to the extent the law requires.  New York State (and  other states) increases citizens’ likelihood of serving jury duty if they vote even when  this detriment to voting can be eliminated for some voters without reducing the number of people available for jury duty. Texas and other states eliminate duplications.  New York uses additional lists, such as state tax income rolls, lists of licensed drivers, and welfare rolls.  But by not eliminating duplications, New York needlessly increases people’s chances of being called for jury duty because they vote.  (Its agents go from list to list.  The more lists you are on, the greater your probability of being called.)  I say that this is an illegal abridgement of the fundamental right of voting.   Twice I’ve lost on this issue, each time unsuccessfully petitioning the Supreme Court to hear my appeal. Since then I’ve tried unsuccessfully to find someone willing to litigate it in another state.

Where did I go wrong?  I can think of three possibilities.  One possibility is that my premise is wrong.  (Please read this entry  before you accept that possibility.)  Another is that that I faced insurmountable prejudice in the New York courts.  The opinion of the federal Court of Appeals, which is reported as Bershatsky v. Levin, at 99 F.3d 555, fails to discuss my point about conflicting Constitutional principles, as articulated in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 337, 31 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1972.) Also, while it cited Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966),  it does so in a way that ignores the main point, which I quoted, “We conclude that a State violates  the Equal   Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of a fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax.”   (Some people, of course, can better afford to take time off for jury duty than can poor working people.)  A third possibility is that I did not articulate my case well enough.  I could use help there, too.

2/3/07

untitled