Sixth Circuit Sets Oral Argument in Tennessee Ballot Access Case

The Sixth Circuit will hear Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, 13-5975, on August 7, at 9 a.m in Cincinnati. This is the case in which the Green Party and the Constitution Party challenged the 2.5% petition for a group to become a qualified party. The U.S. District Court had struck down that petition requirement last year. The legislature has refused to amend it and the legislature hopes the Sixth Circuit will reverse the 2013 decision of the U.S. District Court.


Sixth Circuit Sets Oral Argument in Tennessee Ballot Access Case — No Comments

  1. Good news everyone, the Republican candidate for Attorney General Ron Gold has agreed to be in communication with the California Super-state Parliament’s Unity Coalition. We’ll be electing a new Coalition of Seven soon after August 5th when all the votes are counted.

    I have been speaking to many of the candidates (and former candidates) today and yesterday and there is a lot of support for the project. If you’re interested in participating, please try the voting system by locating the ballot online and follow the directions to elect the team on any geographical level from California to Earth:

  2. And yet again – another comment having absolutely nothing to do with the BAN posting! Such comments are an inconsiderate waste of the time of the other readers of BAN! James Ogle – you have your own fantasy parliament website on which you can post anything you wish for those who wish to view/read. Please cease cluttering up the online BAN with your advertisements which very, very frequently do not pertain to a BAN posting and most often only marginally related to ballot access.

  3. Gene, the comment is relevant because the 9th USA Parliament is a unity of all; the 100%.

    We’re striving to end the lawsuits and conflict and a crucial element is communication.

    We must promote the cool team players quickly in order to get the word out as fast as possible so that we can help people on state and national level ASAP.

    We are tightly connected to Tennessee and what happens in California can affect the entire USA since we’re based in California. California is leading the way as shown in my post.

  4. Separate is NOT equal. Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954

    Every election is NEW.

    Thus – EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.

    Much too difficult for the many MORON lawyers and judges in ballot access cases — starting with Williams v. Rhodes (1968)

    The brain dead stuff in New Age ballot access cases is a worse repeat of the brain dead stuff about some sort of alleged federal *common law*.

    See the Erie case in 1938 ruling that a mere 98 years of stuff was UN- constitutional.

  5. Thank you, I looked into the Erie case in 1938:

    A 2.5% threshold is an arbitrary number. If there are 40 members in the assembly, then under pure proportional representation (PR) the threshold would be 1/41th (or 2.4%) of the total votes TO BE ELECTED.

    So that total is equivalent to the number of votes to be elected, and is ridiculously high for ballot access.
    * * *

    Are you tired of fighting against unfair math in plurality single-winner elections? Try pure proportional representation!

    The 9th USA Parliament has been using it for 19 consecutive years and it works great!

  6. We have been waiting a long time for this. If you would like to learn why the ballot access restrictions are in place, I invite you to listen to the 1961 floor debate from the Tennessee legislature when these very restrictions being challenged in court were enacted into law. The audio on this video is from the Tennessee State Archives and Library

  7. Daniel, if you could organize the transportation to make it easier for Tennessee activists to attend the hearing in Cincinnati, that would be very worthwhile. Judges are influenced by all sorts of things. If the 3 judges see the courtroom filled with 20 or so audience members, and it is obvious that they are there for this particular hearing, that can and will help.

  8. What was the reasoning the Judge used to strike down the 2.5% requirement? I would like to see how this case could be used to target Oklahoma’s 5% requirement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *