COFOE Helps Pay Expenses for Two Voluntary Lobbyists for Better Ballot Access in Alabama and Georgia

Thank you to the several hundred people who have contributed to the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) over the years.  COFOE is a loose coalition of most of the nation’s nationally-organized minor parties, and some allied organizations.  Recently COFOE sent $1,000 to a volunteer lobbyist for better ballot access in Alabama, and $1,000 to a volunteer in Georgia.  They will use the money to help pay their expenses as they spend time working to get better ballot access bills introduced in those states.


Comments

COFOE Helps Pay Expenses for Two Voluntary Lobbyists for Better Ballot Access in Alabama and Georgia — 9 Comments

  1. Hire a lawyer with ANY legal history brain cells —
    Get ALL the JUNK ops since 1968 OVER-RULED.

    Equal Ballot Access Brief, 14 NOV 2018

           The fundamental constitutional principle of SEPARATE-IS-NOT-EQUAL in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954), was unfortunately N-O-T brought up in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) — the first *modern* ballot access case in SCOTUS.

           Every State has SEPARATE and UNEQUAL ballot access laws for the candidates of —
    (1) so-called major parties, 
    (2) old so-called minor parties, 
    (3) new so-called minor parties and 
    (4) independents. [Specify for State involved].
     
           Also, the following basic points have not been properly noticed — 
    (1) there is ONE class of electors in a general election,
    (2) there is ONE class of candidates on the general election ballots (i.e. a candidate is on or off the ballots) and 
    (3) each general election for each office is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior general election — for such office (or any other office) — or any other thing since 4 July 1776 — EXCEPT the number of actual voters at the prior general election in the election area of the office involved — for having EQUAL nominating petitions at the next election (see below).

          A-L-L ballot access cases have failed to note such basic points including —
    Williams,
    Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971),
    American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974),
    Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986),
    Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) and
    New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008).

    [I.E. suggest/demand that ALL of the cases beginning with Williams be overruled.]
     
          The Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amendment, Sec. 1 requires that all INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME election area pass the SAME (i.e. *EQUAL*) test(s) for ballot access to get on state or local general election ballots.

           Obviously an *EQUAL* nominating petition for ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area will show which INDIVIDUAL candidates have a preliminary showing of voter support — or EQUAL filing fees.

            See also Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) (equal regional treatment of electors who sign petitions) and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-636 (1996) (discrimination against homosexuals).

           The Moore case was noted in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 107 (2000).
    —-
    The cases can be seen via

    http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

  2. @DR,

    Is it lawful to have different schools for students of different ages? What about sex?

    I don’t understand your objection to Lopez Torres.

  3. JR – add to list — mental and physical status — and political status — USA citizen or foreign.

    See the 1865-1866 infamous *black codes* in the ex-slave States.

    The so-called *radicals* in the 1865-1866 USA 39th Congress were NOT amused — dealing also with multi-thousands of dead Union troopers and their wives and orphans, TOTAL econ chaos in the ex-rebel States [including major starvation), major inflation, French troops in Mexico, etc., etc. >>> MAJOR chaos.

    See the 1866 Civil Rights Act {Apr 1866) and the later EPC in 14 Amdt, Sec. 1 (June 1866) — in connection with 14 Amdt, Sec. 5.

    Much too difficult for the SCOTUS MORONS to understand.

    Clue — think *natural* [age/sex] and artificial CLASS stuff.

  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866

    Note all the doubts about the constitutionality of the Act.

    The SCOTUS MORONS have not yet detected that being *free* [as basic as that is] does NOT confer ALL *civil* rights —

    free blacks, free women, free foreigners, free whoever in ALL States before Civil War I.

    The standard — The LAW before or after any LAW change.

  5. @DR,

    Why can’t a distinction be made on the basis of filing status, major or minor party or independent or write-in?

    ps How does your argument apply to Lopez Torres.

  6. Is JR a candidate for the next open SCOTUS job ???

    See the word EQUAL in 14 Amdt Sec. 1.

    Has JR ever read Brown v Bd of Ed ??? — overruling 1896 JUNK – a mere 58 years late.

    1968 JUNK in Williams v Rhodes — now a mere 50 plus years old.

    Human INDIVIDUALS are elected — NOT fictional *persons*.

    Lopez is one more ballot access JUNK case.

    TOTAL about 20-30 JUNK SCOTUS ballot access cases

    — also affecting other legal subject areas — esp EPC cases.

  7. @DR,

    NO on audition for SCOTUS, and ypurself.

    YES on Brown. As I understand the decision, at least in the field of public education, that because of past history, racially segregated schools, are inherently non-equal, even if there were equal funding.

    Explain why you believe it is applicable to elections in contexts where race is not involved. It might apply if there were racially segregated electorates, such as polling places, even if the voting equipment were the same, or if the number of representatives elected by racial group were proportional to the number of persons.

    Has DR re-read Lopez Torres in the last week?

  8. Even the clueless will detect that *EQUAL* population stuff has been used in the defective gerrymander cases since 1964.

    What if the gerrymander hacks pass a ONE Party State law —-

    ONLY the HACKS of the [Donkey]/ [Elephant] [pick one only] Party can get their names and party names on the ballots.

    OR a TWO Party State law —

    ONLY the HACKS of the Donkey and Elephant Parties can get their names and party names on the ballots.

    — *equal* for everybody ??? Yeah. Sure.

    Even the SUPER-clueless should be able to detect that the 14th Amdt was also written to protect Elephants and even anti-slavery Donkeys in the ex-rebel / ex-slave State regimes

    — esp. the many folks who risked their lives helping the Union Army/Navy in smashing the slavery oligarchs in 1861-1865 – as spies, recon, supply transport.

    Even a few Union Army regiments from slave State residents formed – esp. in the border slave States and TN, VA – esp. later WV part] and NC — who really knew how to deal with slave oligarchs up close and personal — like Jewish Germans in the Allied forces in Europe in WW II.

    READ Lopez when it was produced – NO need to read JUNK again.

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.