Three state questions passed-- three lawsuits to overturn.

A nation in which the "rule of law" is supreme is a good thing, they say.

They say that because it's a hell of a lot less painful to decide things by voting than it is to decide them by the time-honored method of bullets and bayonets.

But what happens if laws duly-passed by either legislatures or by the people (via referenda, or state questions) are overturned by activist, agenda-driven judges?

Last week voters in my backwater state in flyover country passed three "state questions"-- a way for the people to pass laws that power-hungry legislators refuse to pass, either because big money would bribe them not to, or because they fear losing votes from special-interest groups.

The first question barred state courts from considering international law--specifically including Sharia (Islamic) law--in cases before them.

It passed by 75-25.

The day after it passed, a group filed suit to have the measure nullified.

The second question specified that the official language of the state would be English, and that the state could not use taxpayer funds to conduct official business in any other language. In other words, the state couldn't be forced to print ballots or applications in Spanish or Laotian or Hmong or whatever.

Now a law professor has filed suit to overturn this result as well.

Of particular note is the grounds for his suit: He claims the measure would infringe on the free-speech rights of state employees by barring them from speaking a foreign language.

Yeah, I can't believe it either. And I haven't read the actual filing; this comes from the local paper, so I take it with a grain of salt.

The third state question said that everyone wanting to vote must show identification.

Like the other two, this logical, reasonable measure to reduce vote fraud passed by almost 75-25.

And now the same prof who sued to overturn the second question says he plans to file suit to overturn this question as well.

Now, I'm well aware that under our marvelous Constitution people can't be deprived of their actual Constitutional rights by a majority vote. But I honestly can't see where any of these state questions would do that. That is, I don't see where people have a right to vote without proving that they are who they claim to be, or where people who can't speak English have a right to force the state to deal with them in their language.

And I certainly do not see how requiring the courts to consider only U.S. laws deprives anyone of any of their Constitutional rights.

And of course it's always possible that a reasonable judge will side with the voters on these questions.

Of course if that were to happen you absolutely know what will happen next: the plaintiff-- backed by money from pro-illegal groups-- will appeal. And again if necessary, until he finally finds a judge who agrees with his position. Meanwhile the state will be spending a paltry half-million bucks or so to defend the will of a bunch of voters, and the clamor will rise that we have far better ways to use such money--like, "for da chiiiiiilllldren." So the state will be inclined to concede the case rather than fight.

Happens every time.

And of course the voters never learn. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football year after year, Lucy always snatches it away at the last second, but the poor dumb schmuck keeps falling for her promises.

Hate to say it, but this will come down to bullets. I suggest it would be far better to honor the rule of law now and throw out these frivolous lawsuits rather than risk civil war.

But if the courts somehow find new, heretofore unseen "rights" to overturn these questions, I suggest it's better to take up arms sooner rather than later.

Link. Actual text of the state questions are here.