Garrison v. Connick

This dissent is not based on any supposition that election irregularities are attributable to the contestee, Harry Connick, or to persons aligned with him. It merely expresses the view that the contestant, Jim Garrison, should have the opportunity to prove his allegations which leave the election outcome questionable.

Unfortunately, the appearance is sometimes falsely created that the courts and *687the legislature are striving to encourage rather than suppress election irregularities. The legislature attempts to limit courts not only by one- or two-day action deadlines, but also by providing (as…