Quite a theory: No law is unfair if only that law is being followed.

According to an election board attorney in Howard County, Maryland, tossing 80 percent of the signatures on a voters’ petition does not add up to a “right-to-vote case” at all. Gerald Richman says the board merely “[carried] out the dictates of the law.” He denies that “fundamental fairness is an issue.”

The proposed referendum aimed to stop a rezoning in Howard Country permitting the building of larger grocery stores. I’m skeptical of zoning as an instrument to protect citizens and their property, so if I resided in Howard County, I would not likely vote Yes.

But as things stand now, I also would not be allowed to vote No.

Two months after the election board okayed the first batch of signatures, the board turned on a dime and began massively nullifying signatures, essentially killing petition rights unless voters can win them back in court.

Were the tossed signatures deemed fraudulent? No. The only “problem” is trivial variations between how voters signed their names on the petition and how their names are registered. Things like omitting a middle initial. An attorney for the residents notes that under such restrictive requirements, the signatures of Ben Franklin and John Hancock on the Declaration of Independence could not have been counted.

That notion of fairness is one King George would’ve been mad for.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s a dangerous world. You never know when someone may be out there . . . petitioning their government?

In the past few months, citizens circulating petitions for an anti-tax referendum have hit Oregon streets. And with those citizens trailed a team of investigators. The Secretary of State had hired them, paying with funds provided courtesy of state legislators — the same politicians who passed the tax increases petitioners are seeking to block.

The surveillance proved almost as amusing as it is frightening. For four-fifths of the time investigators put in — at $40 to $70 an hour — they couldn’t even locate petition circulators to commence their stakeouts.

One government agent secretly infiltrated a training seminar held by Americans for Prosperity. The covert op filed this shocking report: “The training was very thorough and was consistent with the training provided by the Elections Division.”

In the end, investigators found no serious wrongdoing — none of the fraudulent activity that might justify secretive investigations of citizens who just happen to oppose the legislators’ policies.

Oregon politicians claim such tactics are necessary to “to protect the integrity of our electoral system.” But they’ve completely lost touch with basic democratic principles. Without any evidence a crime has been committed, citizens petitioning their government or engaging in other political pursuits should not be subjected to secret witch-hunts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Gutta-percha is a Southeast Asian tree. A cane made from its wood was wielded in the U.S. Senate by Congressman Preston Brooks, against a sitting senator, Charles Sumner — literally sitting there at his desk. Sumner nearly died from the beating.

Congressman Brooks hailed from South Carolina. His constituents so approved his violence that they sent him dozens of replacement canes. One was engraved “hit him again.”

One-hundred fifty-three years later and we’re still much exericized by the actions of a South Carolinian congressman, this time one Joe Wilson, who shouted “You lie!” at the president. The in-crowd reacts as if those words were gutta-percha.

Jonathan Alter, in Newsweek, says today’s problem is too many “jackasses.” According to his assessment, if we adopted the new electoral system adopted in Washington state, which he calls the “open primary,” the “jackass quotient” among our representatives would decrease.

Alter seriously errs. Washington’s new electoral system, usually called “Top Two primary,” replaces the state’s historic — and justly named — “open primary.” But this new “Top Two” scheme marginalizes minor parties and independent candidates, raises campaign costs, and makes it easier for incumbents to stay in office. I’ve argued against it before.

Good thing is, next June, Californians can beat down this idea, when “Top Two” hits the state’s ballot, courtesy of the incumbent politicians who placed it there.

Citizens won’t need canes. Just votes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

With all that’s going on in Washington, don’t forget: There’s a lot happening on state and local ballots. Consider these recent newsline items from Ballot Box News:

Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Alvarez is under fire for giving big-ticket raises to favored insiders while calling for steep budget cuts. A day after a poll found that 58 percent of registered voters favor the recall of Alvarez, another local mayor filed a lawsuit to undo controversial requirements that make it much more difficult to recall sitting politicians. There’s a link to the rest of the story at the Miami Herald.

Republican lawmakers are lining up against a citizen initiative effort to impose stringent ethics guidelines on the Utah Legislature. Complained the state senate’s majority leader, “If there are people out there who have political intentions they will use this as a club time and time again.”

Uh, sir, that would be the idea. Without people clubbing politicians on ethics, how can we root out corruption in politics? Can we trust you to do it, based on your good word as an incumbent?

Full story in The Salt Lake Tribune.

We’re told California’s cash-strapped state government would be virtually wallowing in piles of cash if a proposed wealth tax makes it to the ballot. And is approved by voters. And survives legal challenge. I don’t support it. Tax-the-rich schemes are unjust, and don’t work.

But I do support BallotBoxNews.com, where you can find out more about this proposed tax, and many other hot-button issues.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

A few weeks ago, a rock bassist, Krist Novoselic of Nirvana fame, signed up to run for the clerk position in his small, rural county in Washington state. Now that he’s withdrawn his candidacy, it is worth looking at what he was trying to accomplish.

Novoselic ran under the Grange Party — not the “Grunge Party.” Next to his name on the ballot it would have appeared “prefers Grange Party” had he continued the campaign.

But there is no “Grange Party.” The Grange is a farmers’ association that endorses, but does not run, candidates.

He ran to demonstrate a flaw in Washington state’s “Top Two Primary” system. A person can run as “preferring” any political party — imaginary, defunct, or alive and kicking. The identified party has nothing to say about it. Lyndon LaRouche could’ve run as “preferring Democrat” without any Democratic organization’s vote; David Duke could run as “preferring Republican” without one drop of support from any GOP affiliate.

This offends Novoselic’s support for free association. Party affiliation and participation should mean something, he believes. In fact, he supports firehouse primaries wherein the parties pay for their own nominating procedures.

Before he withdrew, Novoselic got a fair amount of media attention. His stunt may actually effect a change for the good in the Evergreen state.

We could use more celebrities who are as thoughtful as Novoselic about the means of politics, not just the ends.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.