On September 14, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Wisconsin Elections Commission that Howie Hawkins should not be on the ballot. The decision does not decide whether he was removed properly or not, but merely says he waited too long to sue, and it would cause too much disruption to put him on the ballot now. Hawkins v Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2020AP-1488-OA. Here is the 50-page decision. The vote was 4-3.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
In general, second-guessing the Secretary of State doesn’t work.
So except for PA, is this it? Are all the ballots now defined?
Ouch!
Close vote!
So are Jorgensen and Carroll the only third party candidates on the WI ballot?
No, the Wisconsin ballot will contain Don Blankenship of the Constitution Party, and Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party. The Wisconsin Constitution Party is ballot-qualified because it got over 1% in 2018 for both Attorney General and Treasurer. It is the only ballot-qualified third party in Wisconsin.
Sooooo – mere 10 months of torture ends ??? –
Dec 2019-Sep 2020 — how many cases ??? HUNDREDS ???
—-
NOOO primaries.
1 voter forms – candidates and issues
PR and AppV
Cody, in Wisconsin, along with half the other states, let candidates who use the independent procedure choose a partisan label. Naturally Jo Jorgensen’s slogan is “Libertarian”, and if she gets at least 1% the Libertarian Party will become ballot-qualified.
The Constitution Party will remain ballot-qualified even if Don Blankenship gets less than 1%. Parties gain qualified status in a presidential election in Wisconsin with a 1% vote, but if they already have it, they don’t need to get 1% for president in order to keep it.
At least Howie will be a qualified wrote-in in Wisconsin, but I’m so goddamn tired of these ballot access issues. We need to fight these every four years, it’s absurd and such a waste of resources and time. The most disgusting thing is that are some who would have voted Green who might vote Democrat because the Democrats stole their right to a choice.
The state supreme court opinion makes fascinating reading. The majority opinion reads like a sophomore political science term paper, while the two dissents are legally sophisticated, detailed and (leaving aside some heated rhetoric directed at the majority) rigorous. By itself, that doesn’t mean the dissents are correct on the law. But it does make the majority’s motivation appear to be almost completely political.
almost completely political = ARBITRARY LAWLESS
Powerful statement of dissent by 3 WI Supreme Court justices. One hopes that their is an avenue to redress this denial of not just a ballot line, but party recognition for the next election cycle. The chair of the election commission needs to be unseated.