On June 21, Rocky De La Fuente filed this short supplemental brief in the Third Circuit, explain why his ballot access case is not moot. The case involves the law that does not permit primary petitioners to work, unless they are registered into the same party as the candidate. The state had said it would no longer enforce the law, so the Third Circuit wanted briefs on whether or not the case is moot.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Does UNCONSTITUTIONAL stuff get any special notes in the States — ie in State Constitutions, state laws, state regulations, state notices to lower officials (esp election stuff) ???
IE —
If you dare to enforce UN-constitutional stuff — then YOU WILL be put in a Fed Jail and lose all of your assets — aka be bankrupted.
Richard –
Hasn’t there been some Supreme Court decision that ballot access and similar suits can’t be termed moot just because of such promises or that election is over? A promise by a state is not binding and could easily be ignored for subsequent elections.
look for *capable of repetition* and *evading review* —
ie esp election stuff — one of the few govt events that allegedly must repeat.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag23_user.html
note 479 elections
Gene, you’re right. The state is not claiming the case is moot because the election is over. Instead the state says it is moot because the state won’t enforce the law in the future. But as Rocky’s brief says, that is no guarantee, because Pennsylvania still removes people from the ballot when a challenge by a private person is filed. So it doesn’t settle the matter to say the state won’t enforce the law; the challenger could demand that the law be enforced.