ON February 16, radio talk show host Michael Smerconish interviewed State Senator Bob Krist for 10 minutes, about Nebraska ballot access. Smerconish supports independent candidates and opened the interview by expressing dismay that Krist had abandoned his independent run for Governor and instead is seeking the Democratic nomination. Hear the interview at this link.
The 2016 Nebraska law change for the number of signatures needed by non-presidential independent candidates changed the law from 4,000, to 10% of the number of registered voters. Confusion about the exact number required in 2018 is because the law does not indicate the date of the registration tally, to figure out the number. Apparently the requirement is dependent on when the petition is submitted. Nebraska has a new tally of registered voters every month. Although the two men seemed to believe the requirement is approximately 120,000, is the petition were submitted on the due date, chances are it would require 130,000. The petition is due September 1. Probably if someone did comply with the requirement, the state would be hard pressed to check the signatures in time, if the petition were submitted on the deadline.
Senator Krist praises the Nebraska Democratic Party for allowing independents to vote in its gubernatorial primary in 2018. Smerconish expressed surprise that the party was permitted to make that decision. Smerconish had not previously known about the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, which said that parties can decide for themselves whether to let independents vote in their primaries.
Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut confirmed that voters who could vote for the larger chamber of the legislature could vote for Congress. Justice Marshall in Part IV attempted to mumble his way through with an explanation, and cited Justice Black’s opinion of one in ‘Oregon v Mitchell’. Justice Stevens dissent in ‘Tashjian’ explains what the Constitution actually says. Read Stevens opinion if you want to understand the Constitution. Read Part IV if you want your brain to hurt. The SCOTUS should never have got to issue of who could vote in congressional primaries since the Republicans were not permitting independents to vote in legislative primaries.
After the decision, someone asked the Nebraska Attorney General how it applied to Nebraska, where all voters regardless of their political views are permitted to vote for their legislators in all elections. The AG issued an opinion that voters who qualified to vote for the larger (only) house of the legislature, were qualified to vote in primary elections for Congress. He expressed a caveat that no one could be sure what Marshall meant because Part IV is not logically cogent.
Ever since, independent voters in Nebraska have been permitted to vote in congressional primaries in Nebraska. In 1994, the AG’s opinion was codified in statute (NRS 32-912). Section 2 permits a party to open its primary for all offices. Section 3 requires the congressional primary to be open to all voters.
Bob Krist’s comment and Richard Winger’s commentary may lead some to conclude that the Democratic decision was unique to 2018.
Note that in Nebraska, a party may by party rule permit a non-member to run for nomination. It would appear that the Democratic Party was unwilling to let Krist seek the party nomination without changing his registration.
Based on Krist’s praise for George Norris it is obvious he would favor making all elections in Nebraska Top-2 non-partisan elections.
Elected UCC Candidates
http://www.intetnational-parliament.org/ucc.html
Candidate for State Assembly, California, USA (November 2020)
Mark Herd [Libertarian]
Candidates for Governor of California, USA (November 2018)
Nickolas Wildstar [Libertarian]
Stasyi Barth [Republican]
Candidates for Lt. Governor of California, USA (November 2018)
Gail McLaughlin [Independent]
James Ogle [Republican]
Tim Ferreira [Libertarian]
Candidates for USA Congress (November 2018)
California CD 2 Andy Caffrey [Ecotopian Democratic]
Louisiana CD 3 Verone Thomas [Noble People of Conscious]
California CD 36 Doug Hassett [Republican]
Candidates for (POTUS) President of the United States (November 2020)
Donald Trump [Republican]
Miss Joy Waymire [Anarchist]
Adam Kokesh [Libertarian]
Candidate for Vice President of the United States (November 2020)
BJ Jordan [Dallas Cowboys]
Candidate for Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors, California, USA (November 2018)
Pamela Elizondo [Green]
Candidate for Chairman of National Patriot Party of Ghana, Africa (2018)
Alhaji Abubakari Abdul Rahaman [NPP]
Candidate for Prime Minister of Canada (October 21st, 2019)
Raphael Louis [National Coalition Party of Canada (NCPC)]
* * *
Smerconish also has a CNN TV show on weekends.
—
More UNEQUAL ballot access stuff.
The Party HACK MORONS (legislative and executive) fail to have time flow charts (with time deadlines) of election stuff.
—
The SCOTUS party HACK MORONS can NOT detect that there are PUBLIC Electors with PUBLIC nominations of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices according to PUBLIC LAWS.
IE — ALL or SOME Electors nominate.
IE — the party hack gangs/factions have ZERO control over such PUBLIC LAWS.
—-
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut (1986)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/479/208/case.html
mere 32 years of idiocy
— part of the general idiocy since Williams v Rhodes in 1968
— mere 50 years of idiocy and counting.
@DR, Why do you believe that Tashjian was idiotic? Extra credit for using complete sentences.
So umm James, if those people were contacted would they verify that they know you; let alone agree that they’re associated with your organization? Or would they sue you for defaming them by saying your associated with them?
The United Coalition of Candidates (UCC)
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
The Unity Platform
“Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)” By Mark Herd [Libertarian] for State Assembly, California, USA
“Term Limits” By Miss Joy Waymire [Anarchist] for President of the USA
Also
“Immediate Labelling of All Foods” and “Restore Glass-Steagal Act”
* * *
United Coalition IP Senate Chamber Humanitarian Project
Equal Free Speech Time, April 21st and 22nd, 2018, Candidates’ Conference/Debate
All candidates for elective office invited to speak at Monterey Bay Park, Del Monte Avenue, Monterey, California, USA, Earth
Noon to 5 pm on both days.
Bring your aluminum cans to Monterey Bay Park for the world humanitarian project!
http://international-parliament.org/human-rights.html
For more information contact James at (831) 224-5786.
Contact Us at http://usparliament.org/contact.php
* * *
Aiden- I think that’s a big no! (but not sure about the second part).
JR- 3rd above
Tash Syl part –
1. Section 9-431 impermissibly burdens the rights of the Party and its members protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 479 U. S. 213-225.
(a) The freedom of association protected by those Amendments includes partisan political organization. Section 9-431 places limits upon the group of registered voters whom the Party may invite to participate in the “basic function” of selecting the Party’s candidates. The State thus limits the Party’s associational opportunities at the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power in the community. The fact that the State has the power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections does not justify, without more, the abridgment of fundamental rights, such as the right to vote or, as here, the freedom of political association. Pp. 479 U. S. 213-217.
—
Repeat of DR 1253 PM above-
The SCOTUS party HACK MORONS can NOT detect that there are PUBLIC Electors with PUBLIC nominations of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices according to PUBLIC LAWS.
IE — ALL or SOME Electors nominate. REPEAT – ***PUBLIC ELECTORS***.
IE — the party hack gangs/factions have ZERO control over such PUBLIC LAWS.
The HACKS can meet IN PRIVATE or via mail / email and endorse whomever before any PUBLIC primary.
The TASH idiocy lead to the 2000 CA Dem idiocy case.
—
Again — the 1st Amdt has ZERO to do with election *mechanics*.
See weeks of earlier postings.
The 1st Amdt had to do with the EVIL Brit machinations regarding speech, press, assemble, issue petitioning —- religion stuff a bit separate – but connected with mental-physical stuff — as in speech, press, etc.
Most, if not ALL, constitutional rights stuff has to do with some rotted stuff that rotted evil govt hacks did in the past.
Again – see the book —
Sources of Our Liberties ed by Richard L. Perry (1959, Am Bar Assn) — years of work compiling a zillion *sources*.
ZERO mention of 1st Amdt as remedy for any election/voting *mechanics* *problem*.
IE – the usual suspect SCOTUS hacks have been perverting various parts of the USA Const to control the agenda – 1st Amdt, due process of law, etc.
@DR, Was ‘Smith v Allwright’ wrongly decided?
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/321us649
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright
Reverse question — rightly decided ???
YES — but partly NO
***
YES – State action in having the results of the TX Donkey white primary used to get TX Donkey candidates on the PUBLIC general election ballots.
***
YES – blatant violation of 15 Amdt, Sec. 1 — NO – NOT 14 Amdt, Sec. 1 — but YES also 14 Amdt, Sec. 2 (not mentioned in case).
Obviously WW II had its effects on the case — fighting racist killers in Axis Powers (esp Hitler and Hirohito regimes) — many USA black military in front lines (tank units, fighter plane units) and in supply / transport units (often in front lines – esp. in Pacific Ocean islands).
Attorney Thurgood Marshall in case – later SCOTUS Justice.
Did Smith get paid the $$$ damages ???
Why don’t you believe that equal protection applies in Smith v Allwright? It did in Smith v Herndon. Could a State deny the right to vote for left-handed people?
Marshall wrote the opinion in Tashjian. Since Smith v Allwright was based on the linkage between “the election” and primaries, based on Classic, he had to address the issue since Article I, Section 2 says the electors for congresscritters is the same as for the larger chamber of the legislature, and the Republican party wanted to permit independents only to vote in congressional primaries. See Justice Stevens dissent. Stevens logically argues that that the SCOTUS should never have addressed the question of the 1st Amendment. But because Marshall wanted to rule on 1st Amendment so he question he had to muddle through Part IV of his opinion.
so he had to acknowledge that there was a linkage between “the election” and primary elections,
JR
See the ONE main speech in the 1866 Senate about the 14th Amdt. – Congressional Globe, 39 Cong, 1 Sess.
IF the 14th Amdt covered the definition of Elector-Voter, THEN the 15th, 19th, etc. Const Amdts would NOT have been needed.
It took about 5 tries in 1865-1866 to get the 14 Amdt, Sec 2 language.
The entire 14th Amdt was the result of multiple separate failing efforts regarding the final Sections 1 to 4
— ie a last gasp effort to prevent the Civil War from reviving
— due esp to the infamous Black Codes in most of the ex-slave regimes
— trying to keep the ex-slaves having NO or minimal *civil* rights and ZERO *political* rights – voting / holding any public office.
The whole 1860-1877 time was chaos / revolutionary —
blacks – south, chinese CA, mexicans SW, etc. minorities —
1865 13 Amdt freedom
1868 14 Amdt Sec 1 civil rights, Sec 2 State loss of power in USA regime if no right to vote for ALL (repeat ALL) USA citizen adult males.
1870 15 Amdt right to vote — based on 14 Amdt, Sec 2 language.
REAL COST — the about 400,000 plus Union Army/Navy DEAD in 1861-1865 — many black Union Army dead in 1864-1865 – near white Union Army exhaustion in 1864-1865.
The 13-14-15 Amdts should be in RED ink as a reminder of such REAL COST.
Same RED ink for the last para of the 1776 DOI
— DEAD USA patriots in 1775-1783 Am Rev War – many, many under age 21 — as in 1861-1865.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
One of the largest wikis — the *conventional* analysis.
Think – intolerable problems – remedies.
In 1865-1866 the USA Congress was also dealing with the French invasion of Mexico in 1861-1867 (Dictator Napoleon III) — along with dealing with the many, many war injuries, widows and orphans, protecting white and black Union supporters in the South, massive property destruction in the South, the giant national debt, major inflation due to paper money (Union greenbacks), cutting the size of the USA Army and Navy, *retrenchment*, etc. etc. — MAJOR overload.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_intervention_in_Mexico
What is needed are the constitutional/statutory definitions of Elector-Voter in ALL of the States in June 1866.
Some/Many of the States had stuff about literacy, taxpayer, property owner, durational resident, etc.
— in addition to white only (north and south), male only, adult only, USA citizen only requirements.
SCOTUS has not demanded that the USA Solicitor General compile such definitions in an amicus brief — LONG ago — ie in 1868.
Somewhat sure that the Congress did NOT compile such definitions in any 1865-1868 report.
It took a MAJOR effort to compile many/most of the 1865-1866 Black Codes in the ex-rebel States — telegraph systems in war zones wrecked in the Civil War — marginal USA post office operations after the war.
A state defines an elector by law. A state defines a manner of election by law. These laws are no different than laws in other fields.
Could a state restrict operation of saw mills to left-handed persons, or does that violate equal protection?
REPEAT— See the ONE main speech in the 1866 Senate about the 14th Amdt. – Congressional Globe, 39 Cong, 1 Sess.
———-
LOTS of classifications —-
AGE
SEX
CITIZEN – ALLEGIANCE
FOREIGN
RESIDENCE – CITY – RURAL
MENTAL
PHYSICAL
ASSETS
LIABILITIES
NET WORTH
NATURAL PERSONS / ARTIFICIAL (CORPS, ETC)
ETC
ETC
ETC.
—
SEE 1866 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, SECS. 1 AND 2, APR 1866 — MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBTS.
14 AMDT, SEC. 1 AND SEC. 5 CONNECTIONS.
MORON FAILURE TO LOOK AT 1866 DEBATES IN SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES 1873 —
IE SEAT OF PANTS KNOW-IT-ALL ARROGANCE BY SCOTUS HACKS.
Senator Jacob Howard speech May 23, 1866 about 14th Amdt proposal — Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. pp. 2765-2767.
ANY newspapers and magazines reporting his speech ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era
another large wiki – general chaos 1865-1877
Think 1865-1866 BLACK CODES — akin for the Germans after V-E Day enacting new laws saying surviving minorities in Germany — Jews, gays, etc. — have no civil rights. Really bold and arrogant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)
Note also whites (Democrats and Republicans) in ex-rebel States who helped black slaves and the Union – as spies, recon, etc.
>>> 14 Amdt, Sec. 1, second sentence.