“Direct Democracy Could Sometimes Crush the Interests of a Minority in Society”

And in case anyone does not make it to the NYT article cited here, here is the rest of the statement made by the attorney quoted by Waters:

“One professor of constitutional law, Wilson R. Huhn at the University of Akron School of Law in Ohio, said that recent scholarly research supported the Madisonian notion that direct democracy could sometimes crush the interests of a minority in society — in votes, for example, to ban same-sex marriage.

But as a legal matter, Professor Huhn and several other prominent legal scholars said, the precedent of Luther stood like an implacable guard at the courthouse door.

“If you want an opinion from me, they don’t stand a chance,” Professor Huhn said, referring to the anti-Tabor legal team.

Plaintiffs and their lawyers concede that they have an uphill fight. But they say that Colorado’s journey with Tabor is special, and different from any other legal case or state. The law restricts spending and requires a popular vote on tax increases, which the plaintiffs say has led to a system of end-runs and shell games to keep government operations going.”

Not analogous. Even the plaintiff's lawyers that this is not like other legal fights.

“For the sponsors of A 1877 to advocate public approval for a new charter shows that they don't understand history.”

ALL students in NJ are guaranteed placement in a “thorough and efficient system of free public schools.” Is the failure to open a charter school for a handful of students in a failing district “crush(ing) the interests of a minority in society” or halting the diversion of scarce resources away from the resolution of a larger problem*?

*whose correction at the local level is the responsibility of a school board that will have no say in the operation of the charter school.