Judge Amy Coney Barrett Ruled Unfavorably in Her Only Ballot Access Case

Posted on by September 26, 2020

On September 26, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit for the U.S. Supreme Court.

It appears she has only written one ballot access decision. In 2019 she wrote the opinion in Acevedo v Cook County Electoral Board, 18-2979. She upheld requiring a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Sheriff of Cook County to collect 8,236 signatures. The plaintiff-Candidate had sued, arguing that the state could not constitutionally require more than 5,000 signatures, because Democratic candidates running for statewide office in primaries never need more than 5,000 signatures.

The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled unanimously in 1979 that Illinois could not require more signatures for a minor party candidate for Mayor of Chicago (which was a partisan office back then) to collect 42,000 signatures, because the statewide minor party petition was only 25,000. The Supreme Court 1979 decision said it was obvious that if 25,000 is enough to keep the statewide general election ballot uncrowded, then surely there was no logical reason for Illinois to require more than 25,000 for Mayor of Chicago.

The 2019 Barrett decision fails to follow precedent and logic.

Comments

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Ruled Unfavorably in Her Only Ballot Access Case — 30 Comments

  1. Elections have ceased to matter in the united states. They now have as much validity ad elections in Belarus or Kazakhstan. Her appointment, and likely quid pro quo coming within weeks to cement the emerging dictatorship, is the last nail in the coffin of the USA as a member, much less leader, of the free world. For those opposing the emerging dictatorship look for strategies outside of voting and electoral politics, as that is now purely a show or farce like in any tinpot despotic regime.

  2. You can also forget about finding any kind of justice in the legal or so called justice system in this country as well.

  3. USA monarchs/oligarchs massing their forces –

    as was often done in olde rotted Europe ???

    One or more sides asking for direct foreign intervention ???

    See France into Am colonies/Brit Civil War in 1775-1784.
    —-

    The ROT –

    (A) NO uniform definition of Voter in ALL of the USA.

    (B) UNEQUAL ballot access for all candidates.
    Due to 393 US 23 (1968)- 552 US 196 (2008)
    (C) ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders.

    A-L-L of the major legislative bodies in the USA are totally corrupt and evil ANTI-Democracy minority rule oligarchies — all de facto monarchies via speakers / leaders.

    Especially Gerrymander Math 00001 –

    1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED PACKED/CRACKED GERRYMANDER AREAS

    = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL

    = OLIGARCHS / MONARCHS CONTROL MOST LAW-MAKING.

    — with MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE EXTREMIST PRIMARY MATH.

    The SCOTUS hacks gave a blank check for TOTAL ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE gerrymanders in Rucho v Common Cause, 588 U.S. ______ [docket 18-422] (27 June 2019)

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

    (D) PARTISAN hack executive / judicial officers — Many of which are LAWLESS TYRANTS.

    (E) MANY super-dangerous TYRANT violations of Separation of Powers.

    *******
    SAVE DEMOCRACY REMEDIES —

    (1) UNIFORM DEFINITION OF VOTER IN ALL OF USA. USA Citizen, 18 plus years old.

    (2) EQUAL ballot access for INDIVIDUAL candidates.

    (3) PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR ALL LEGISLATIVE BODY ELECTIONS.

    TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL RATIO to elect each Member.

    Pre-election candidate rank order lists of other candidates. Surplus votes down. Loser votes up.
    Both Majority Rule [DEMOCRACY] and Minority Representation.

    (4) NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS FOR ALL ELECTED EXECUTIVE AND ALL JUDICIAL OFFICERS.

    Approval Voting – Vote for 1 or more. Highest win.

    (5) T-O-T-A-L SEPARATION OF POWERS.

  6. ‘Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party’ was decided on equal protection grounds, in that it discriminated against new parties and independents, and was applied to a special election.

    Moreover the “acceptable” burden in 1980 was three times that of 2018 in a population half as large. That is, on a relative basis it was 6 times as burdensome.

    Other candidates for the Democratic nomination in Cook County were successful, including offices more minor than sheriff.

    Barrett’s opinion was well-written and clear as to its reasoning.

  10. Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979)

    Brain dead slight, severe nonsense ADJECTIVES/ADVERBS J-U-N-K.

    14-1 EQUAL — for INDIVIDUAL candidates =

    TOO MANY USELESS MORON LAWYERS AND WORSE JUDGES TO COUNT.

  11. The number of candidates in the Democratic primary for Cook County, sheriff, has been: 2002 one candidate, 2006 three candidates, 2010 two candidates, 2014 four candidates, 2018 one candidate. That is an average of 2.2 candidates, far, far from a crowded ballot.

    No other state has this flaw. All of these things should have been mentioned in the decision. If the facts weren’t there, the 7th circuit should have remanded it back to the US District Court for more evidence, as the US Supreme Court did in Mandel v Bradley and Storer v Brown.

  12. Another idiotic law that Illinois has that no other state has which ought to be challenged is the one that says that once a petition circulator gathers signatures for a candidate, or candidates, of a particular party, they are committed to that party for the rest of that election cycle, and cannot gather signatures for any other party or an independent candidate. Illinois petitions have declarations on them which have to be signed and notarized. Once a petition circulator does this. Let’s say a petition circulator gathers signatures to place a candidate on the ballot for the Democratic or Republican primary, the petitioning for which takes place between September of the odd year until early January of the even year. This petition circulator is now prohibited from gathering petition signatures for any minor party or independent candidate, for which the petitioning period takes place between March and June of the even year. Petition circulators are also limited to only gathering signatures for candidates from one party, regardless of whether it is a major party or a minor party. This law limits who can gather signatures, therefore making it more difficult for campaigns to find people to do it, and it also limits the freedom of choice of petition circulators as to for whom they cam gather signatures.

  13. Richard is showing his bias here. He doesn’t realize the Cook County Democrats are some of the most corrupt in the nation. They could certainly strong-arm people to not run.

  14. The bias of this website is in favor of letting candidates run, and for letting voters vote for them.

  15. What areas in the USA are NOT Donkey commie / Elephant fascist ***strongholds*** ???

    LARGE NO human parts of Alaska ???
    —
    PR and AppV
    TOTSOP

  16. Did the resident Troll of many fake names grad-u-8 yet from pre-skoool ???

    Like the famous Monkeys typing on a keyboard working on duplicating War and Peace ???

  19. Thomas Jones is off his meds again. All this complaining, yet he won’t do anything about it.

  21. The so-called Duverger’s ***Law*** is an observation like seeing birds migrating — NOT like a LAW of Physics and Chemistry.

    PR and AppV.

    —
    Seems I have had some effect on the 0.000001 IQ so-called brain of the resident pre-skooool Troll of MANY fake names whose pre-history troll cave monster relatives somehow taught it to type somewhat.

  22. So wasn’t it Harry Reid that changed it from 2/3 vote rule to majority?
    I would imgine the hype would be minimal if not for this, however now it seems to be a problem.

  24. Duverger’s Law is by far the biggest problem in electoral politics.
    Do not underestimate it.
    The remedy is Top Six.
    Right now there is Top Three.
    Without GP, CP, Reform/Alliance on all ballots,
    A democrat and a republican will get into the debates.
    Either a democrat or republican will win.
    15% threshold in polling is actually no problem with Top Six.
    The GP and CP will surely outpoll the dems and reps.
    The Reform/Alliance = X the unknown.
    LP close at about 13%.

  30. The 2019 Barrett decision fails to follow precedent and logic.seems she.s on Donald trumps under the desk policies.. another Monica Lewinsky … it’s a shame for are democracy she made a shame of herself for saying she represents our constitution,,, hope her families proud!!!!!
    Daniel e

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.