Tennessee Libertarian Party Files Ballot Access Lawsuit

On July 30, the Tennessee Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit, seeking to require that its gubernatorial nominee, Daniel Lewis, be listed on the ballot as “Libertarian” instead of “independent.” Lewis v Goins, 3:14cv-1565, middle district.


Tennessee Libertarian Party Files Ballot Access Lawsuit — No Comments

  1. That will pose interesting questions: after all “Republican” or “Democrat” are not labels that have a semantic content that is congruent with what those words mean in normal intellectual discourse. Rather every US-American understands they are a rough divide and label (or stigma?) in an incumbent two-party system. Which is why “everyone else”, communist, nationalist, socialist, libertarian … is then labeled “independent” because that’s in the essence what they truly are. And I doubt if many US-Americans actually will put more stock into the word “libertarian” than “independent. And this issue will further pose the tricky question if such labels can be chosen by the candidate or party or must be “objective” and then who decides on the right wording.

  2. Deciding what label a candidate has isn’t a tricky problem at all.

    Simply allow the candidate to have any word(s) they wish as long as there is no slander or hate being used, and when hate or slander is used then the ballot preparer simply censors the word(s).

    Most political parties have this all wrong because they’re not for that unless the word on the ballot is promoting ONLY their own political party/category.

    They are biased.

    The political entities USA Parliament, and all political parties and names being sustained within it, have been doing this correctly for 19 consecutive years and it works great! Won’t you join us?

  3. The party shouldn’t be in charge of this process because the ballot access rules are not equal across the board for all parties and independents, at the time when individual parties try to make the selection of the party name for the state’s ballot.

    The idea is to have equality across the board for all nominees, as well as equal free speech time, and until/unless the individual political parties are interested in cooperating to find the mathematical threshold for equality across the board, these same parties will just mess things up for individuals over and over.

    That’s why the USA Parliament’s system is so much superior.

    Not only do we have a mathematically exact and perfect threshold for all, but we’re always able to lower that threshold year after year for the people.

    In 2016, The USA Parliament’s maximum threshold for being elected to the 10,000-member parliament team will be like a 10,001-way tie (.09999%) plus one vote, so the first 10,000 names to win 1/10,001ths of the vote (plus one vote) will break that tie and be elected.

    It’s the same principle of a 50/50 tie, where one vote will break the tie.

    We’ll have a 100% guaranteed election rate up to the first 10,000 names although the 10,001st name won’t be elected. However #10,001 will be the first consecutively ranked name as a back-up, should any other name resign or die.

    So I ask; “Why spend all your time fighting and attacking a bad system?”

    The bad system’s lawyers get overtime to fight you and they like overtime pay.

    Time spent on an improved voting system has given us at the 9th USA Parliament a unified voice and has allowed for promotion the things the people want.

    By suing, you’re instead promoting the same fussing and fighting; the things that the people are tired of and don’t want. It saddens us to see you fight over things when we’re trying to help you find unity with the all.

  4. The basis for the lawsuit is that the Tennessee ballot access law for newly-qualifying parties to get on the ballot has been held unconstitutional, and the state hasn’t passed a new one yet. So it isn’t that it is unconstitutional for the state to fail to let all independent candidates choose a ballot label other than just “independent.” The lawsuit is based on the absence any law for the Libertarian Party to qualify itself. The state is appealing the decision to the Sixth Circuit, and the hearing is coming up on August 7.

Leave a Reply

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