Kentucky, like most states, held legislative elections on November 4. The Democratic Party had a 54-46 majority in the State House going into the election. The State House election returns now show that there are 53 Democrats, 46 Republicans, and one seat not settled yet. This is bad news for U.S. Senator Rand Paul. The Republican Party has a majority in the State Senate, and earlier this year the State Senate passed a bill letting individuals run simultaneously for President (or vice-president) and other office. But the Democratic majority in the House wouldn’t pass the bill.
Paul is exploring the idea of asking the Kentucky Republican Party to nominate delegates to the national convention by caucus instead of by presidential primary. See this story.
Kentucky has a specific statute enabling a party to choose its convention delegates by caucus.
Kentucky automatically places candidates who have qualified for federal matching funds on its presidential preference primary ballot. I’d think that in concert with the no double-listing law would be of dubious constitutionality.
Rand Paul’s father could also run as a candidate in the presidential primary, and then release his delegates prior to the convention.
Technically, if Ron Paul were the GOP nominee for President in 2016, and at the same election a candidate for re-election to his Senate seat, would not be running for 2 offices at the same time.
Unless the U.S. Constitution has been changed, voters still vote for the “presidential electors” and not the actual candidates.
Richard, isn’t there a Court decision supporting this?
I meant “Rand Paul,” not Ron Paul, his father.
The problem for Rand is the Kentucky Republican presidential primary, which of course has nothing to do with presidential electors.
Rand could skip the KY GOP Presidential primary, though that could hurt him in the long run.
Richard:
He could pull the old George Wallace trick and run MRS. Rand Paul in the Kentucky Republican Presidential Primary. Everyone would know that the delegates won by Mrs. Rand would be instructed to vote for Rand Paul at the Republican National Convention. It worked for George Wallace – so it might still work for Rand Paul!
Or, he could put his dad’s name on the Presidential primary ballot.
Walter Ziobro:
Yep, he might win more delegates with his Dad’s name on the ballot. I am not necessarily a supporter of Senator Rand Paul. But he is not a “Establishment Man” so I want to do everything I can do to make the GOP Establishment grind their teeth.
If anyone has contact with Senator Paul, please get him to consider these options for working around the obstructive Democratic legislature of Kentucky.
It is time the “Establishment” whether they are Democratic or Republican be put in their place and made to realize the “people own and control this country, and we are going to take it back from their selfish clutches!”
Darryl W. Perry:
Since Hillary Clinton is going to win in 2016 and will be re-elected in 2020, Rand Paul might as well give up on the idea of being President until 2024. (Let the other GOP wanna-bes run and fight it out to fill up the top spot on the ticket for those two elections.) By 2024, they’ll all be “has beens” and GOP discards. In 2024, Rand Paul would only be 61 years old – still young enough to run, and also by this time the GOP will have become doctrinally Libertarian – and unless it has imploded, the Libertarian Party will have replaced it as America’s 2nd major party.
Then a Libertarian Rand Paul can run and make political history for himself and the Libertarian Party. If the GOP is still around, Rand Paul might not only be the Libertarian nominee in 2024, but also co-nominated by a libertarian Republican Party in 2014.
Anyone who has Rand Paul’s ear, get this information to him NOW before he too becomes a political “wanna-be,” a “has been,” and a GOP “discard.”
Even though more Democrats won Kentucky House seats, Republicans actually won more votes, 634,779 to 615,411 (with 6,656 votes for independents).
If Paul used the rule of automatically being put on the ballot because of him being on the ballot in 20 other states or receiving match federal funds, which law would supersede the other? In other words, since there would be a conflict of laws, why is it always assumed that the “no double name on ballot” would take precedence? Who would make the choice?