On Sunday, September 30, Rocky De La Fuente notified the Ninth Circuit that the Sixth Circuit had recently issued an order concerning Michigan’s independent statewide petition requirement. De La Fuente is in the Ninth Circuit, trying to overturn California’s independent presidential petition requirement of 178,039 signatures. The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles had upheld the California law.
The new filing to the Ninth Circuit contains the September 6, 2018 ruling of the Sixth Circuit, agreeing with the U.S. District Court that Michigan’s 30,000 signature requirement for statewide independents is too difficult.
California should elect its presidential electors using Top 2 by congressional district (2 would be elected by pairs of SBOE districts). This would reduce the statewide signature requirement to around 2200.
More separate and unequal stuff —
Too many MORON lawyers and esp judges in ballot access cases who never saw/heard Brown v Bd of Ed 1954.
The adjective in 14 AMDT, Sec 1 is E-Q-U-A-L —
NOT *too difficult*, *too hard*, etc.
A mere 50 years of MORON ballot access cases since Williams v Rhodes 1968 — going for a zillion years ???
Also – each election is NEW.
@DR,
Does the current presidential scheme in California violate equal protection. Be specific.
NO need to be specific.
ALL States with separate and UNEQUAL ballot access schemes for partisan offices violate the EPC in 14-1 —
4 OLD/NEW *major*/*minor* parties
1 independents
5 total
@DR,
If you were to be specific, it would help me understand your argument.
I can’t decrypt the last 3 lines of your message.
4 OLD/NEW *major*/*minor* parties [[= 2 x 2]] + 1 independents = 5 total —
SEPARATE and UNEQUAL ballot access systems.
Must go to court ASAP to have a mini-chance for SCOTUS to wake up [[ and detect EQUAL in 14-1 ]] before the rotted Prez primaries stuff happens in 2019-2020.
@DR,
California does not have major and minor parties. It is unclear what you mean by OLD/NEW.
Does it violate equal protection to deny the right to vote to 15 YO?
Posting problem –
See USA 1866 Civil Rights Act, Sec 1
See 14 Amdt Sec 1 — Sec 5 MAJOR connection.
See the 1866 TWO major speeches re 14 AMDT
See the MORONS in 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases
Posting problem 2-
See 1865-1866 Black codes in ex rebel States–
ex slaves —
NO or minimum *civil rights*
NO *political rights*
14 Amdt –
Sec. 1 civil rights
Sec 2 Right to Vote or lose USA Reps/EC votes.
@DR, I thought you were saying that California presidential election laws violate EPC of 14-1. Why are you bringing up 14-2?
Aren’t 15 YO inhabitants of their respective states.
MUST READ 2 main speeches 1n 1866 about 14 Amdt.
14-1 Zillion status based State laws — Citizen – foreign, age, sex, location, etc.
Definition of State Elector-voter NOT in 14-1 —
thus see later 15, 19, 26 Amdts
Total difference – Elector Definition and UNEQUAL stuff between Elector groups
— esp UNEQUAL ballot access.
4-4 RFG — EARLIER UNEQUAL ELECTOR GROUP MACHINATIONS —
BUT NOT ENFORCED.
14-2 UNIVERSAL MALE ADULT USA CITIZEN RIGHT TO VOTE — ALL STATES —
BUT NOT ENFORCED.
THUS — SCOTUS HACK M-O-R-O-N-S —
TOO STUPID TO MAKE CORRECT CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE *L-A-W*
ABOVE 3 STRIKES AND O-U-T — ESP. IN ELECTION LAW CASES.
IE NONSTOP HACKS SINCE THE 1861 LINCOLN REGIME.
14-1 also to protect white Unionists in ex-rebel States —
iE to avoid having Civil WAR I resume/continue.
@DR,
Are you saying that California presidential election laws violate EPC of 14-1?
Yes or no? Explain your answer.
IF ALL wannabee CA Prez candidates (and their 12th Amdt Electors) do NOT EQUALLY get their names on the NOV ballots, then there is one more blatant violation of 14-1 EPC.
Const LAW is NOT atomic physics.
JR can post the CA Prez ballot access law(s).
Later story –
http://ballot-access.org/2018/10/04/california-secretary-of-state-responds-to-sixth-circuit-opinion-from-michigan/
Oct 4, 2018