On December 16, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear De La Fuente v Padilla, 19-524, the California case over the independent presidential petition, which requires almost 200,000 signatures, to be collected in 105 days. No one has complied with the petition since 1992. At the oral argument, the Ninth Circuit had discussed the uncontradicted evidence in the case that the law is not needed to prevent ballot crowding. But when the opinion case out, there was no acknowledgement of that evidence, and the court said the law is needed to prevent ballot crowding.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
One more ballot access DISASTER —
due to the same OLDE rotted arguments by the same OLDE rotted ballot access so-called lawyers
— who should be sued for MAL-practice and DIS-barred.
—
EQUAL in 14-1
much too difficult for rotted lawyers and worse so-called judges.
Very sad.
thats why I support the Political Liberty Amendment.
If candidate names are not printed on the ballot it cannot be “crowded.” Restore the all write-in ballot to elections as ballot were before 1888.
Support the Political Liberty Amendment…..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_%22Liberty%22_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
NOT sure it is the EB PLA ???
They need statistical evidence from past elections. My analysis of 220 years of Tennessee elections (1796-2016) shows that ballots became more confusing and crowded following the introduction of ballot censorship in 1961. The numbers don’t lie.