U.S. District Court in West Virginia Issues Explanation of Why January Declaration of Candidacy Deadline is Almost Surely Unconstitutional

On October 21, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Chambers issued this 15-page opinion in Daly v Tennant, s.d., 3:16cv-8981. It explains why the judge put Darrell Castle on the West Virginia ballot on September 22, along with various other Socialist Equality and Constitution and independent nominees for various offices. Sometimes judges issue injunctions and don’t explain their basis immediately, and this case is an example of that. The October 21 order explains that West Virginia’s law, requiring independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties, to file a declaration of candidacy in January, appears to violate the U.S. Constitution. The order says a January deadline “prematurely cuts off such candidate’s opportunity to respond to later developements…the January deadline deprives these candidates from knowing the political climate of the major parties and what issues will come to the forefront during campaigns. It also seriously impairs their abilities to raise support, money, and recognition for their campaigns.”

These quotes have special resonance, given the August 2016 entrance into the campaign by Evan McMullin. Although McMullin was not a plaintiff in the West Virginia case, and did not get on the West Virginia ballot, he would have been a model candidate-plaintiff for lawsuits against early deadlines in many states, especially Texas, Illinois, Indiana, and North Carolina. McMullin’s failure to file any ballot access lawsuits is a missed opportunity.


Comments

U.S. District Court in West Virginia Issues Explanation of Why January Declaration of Candidacy Deadline is Almost Surely Unconstitutional — 4 Comments

  1. What judge(s) can detect the EQUAL in the EQUAL Protection Clause in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 —

    i.e. EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the same office in the same election area — since each election is N-E-W and has ZERO to do with any prior event in the universe — except the actual number of voters in the election area at the previous election.

    Too many robot party SCOTUS HACKS to count since 1968 — about 15-20 (due to deaths and retirements) ??? Duh.

  2. There have been hacker attacks lately .Maybe the will disrupt the Electionsaybe the FBI should investigate the Trump campaign for the hacker attacks.

  3. It seems clear to me that McMullin is simply an establishment candidate backed by wealthy GOP donors who simply want to take support away from Trump. The establishment in no way wants to make ballot access easier for independent candidates or minor parties. Hence no law suits are being filed and that is all intentional. Just my two cents worth. There were three key states they wanted to get on immediately… Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. They fell short in the latter.

  4. Frank Flunkiger

    Why is it clear to you about McMullin? Please explain.
    Out in California there is an election with no current way
    of coming up with slates of Presidential Electors for the
    November 8, 2016 election. Therefore if there will be electors the CA legislature will pick them by joint resolution, note the practice done by the legislature of
    Colorado on November 7, 1876. Note the Colorado Constitution of 1876 Schedule section 19 and House
    Bill 1 of 1876 for Colorado. We will be going to dealing with Section 2 of the 14th Article of the U. S. Constitution. There will be zero representation in the
    California delegation to the House of Representatives
    from its current 53 members.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.