According to this article in the Yuma Sun, Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer has already said she wants to appeal the July 9 ruling on ballot access to the U.S. Supreme Court. Usually state officials wait a few days after a ruling comes out, before they say whether they will seek U.S. Supreme Court review.
The ruling struck down Arizona’s early June petition deadline for independent presidential candidates, and also the ban on out-of-state petitioners. Brewer seems more concerned about the deadline part of the ruling. She again says, as she did in the lower courts, that Arizona can’t decide how many pages the November ballot will be, until it knows how many independent presidential candidates there will be. It is true that Arizona general election ballots for president consume a great deal of space, because Arizona is one of only 7 states that lists all the candidates for presidential elector. However, there is no sensible reason why Arizona needs to list all the candidates for presidential elector on the November ballot. None of the other states with as many as 8 electoral votes list this information. The candidates for elector are virtually always obscure people, and if ballot space is precious, one wonders why the state insists on listing them. Arizona has 10 electoral votes.
Richard, does this new ruling have any effect on Oklahoma and Colorado?
Congragulations to Mr. Nader and his lawyer. I hope to god that this makes it to the Supreme Court and that they rule in Nader’s favor.
Nader for Supreme Court anyone?
Oklahoma and Colorado are both in the 10th circuit. The 10th circuit has never ruled on residency requirements for circulators, except that it did rule that a city initiative can be circulated by people who live outside that city. The 10th circuit will consider this issue in oral argument in September in the Oklahoma case.
If this goes to the Supreme Court and they decide in Nader’s favor, would this overturn all laws like those in OK and ID?
I should hope so and Texas as well!
Yet another chance for a genius Nader lawyer to tell the Supremes that —
Separate is NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954.
I.E. — ALL of the Supremes ballot access cases have been WRONG since 1968 and must be OVERRULED.
Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election.
Demo Rep,
Believe it or not, lots of people – and not just “genius” lawyers – are well aware of the Court’s holding in Brown v. Board. Furthermore, lots of lawyers are working very hard to challenge discriminatory ballot access laws in this country, and they argue far more persuasively than you do (with your obtuse repetition of what you perceive to be Brown’s holding) that such laws are unconstitutional. Not every law that discriminates is unconstitutional. If the issues were as simple as you think they are, rest assured that discriminatory ballot access laws would have been struck down long ago. In short, stop calling people “moron” and “genius” when it is your own understanding that is woefully simplistic.
If the US Supreme Court hears this case and rules on it is there any chance their opinion could strike down Washington State’s “Top 2” rule ?
They aren’t likely to reverse themselves on WA’s top two until it’s actually implemented.
# 7 What genius law school prof or ANY lawyer(s) has filed an amicus brief with the Supremes bringing up Brown v. Bd of Ed in a ballot access case since 1968 — starting with Williams v. Rhodes ???
Citation please — with ANY mention of such brief by ANY of the Supremes.
Only MORONS (lawyers, profs, party hack Supremes) can NOT detect the EQUAL in the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — mainly because they have been too EVIL lazy to read the debates in the Congressional Globe about how the 14th Amendment happened.
How many of the folks on this list have taken a few months / years to read the Globe from Dec 1865 to June 1866 ??? I DID.
Summary for the clueless — each separate part of the 14th Amdt had FAILED earlier.
It was a LAST chance effort that the *radicals* put the 4 operative sections together (with enforcement section 5) — to prevent a possible resumption of the horrific Civil War from happening.
I.E. 14th Amdt (for 1866 election purposes) or resume the Civil War (due to the infamous Black Codes in 1865-1866 in the ex-slave States putting ex-slaves back into de facto slavery via vagrancy laws, etc.).
The New Age ANTI-Democracy EVIL bastards can now use the UNEQUAL ballot access cases and demand that Brown v. Bd of Ed was wrong and have it overruled by a gang of 5 party hack Supremes.
Dealing with New Age constitutional law MORONS is like dealing with divine right of king MORONS in the 1600s or the pro-slavery MORONS in the 1850s — actually more like dealing with the flat-earth MORONS in the 1500s (before telescopes got invented).
——
EQUAL ballot access on general election ballots via EQUAL nominating petitions.
P.R. and A.V. — regardless of ALL M-O-R-O-N-S and related party hacks.
Fortunately — just barely in time (like the French help in 1778 to save the American Revolution) — the WA State top 2 primary is coming to partially smash the party hack morons out of existance (even though NO primary is needed if there were the 2 items above).
Democracy NOW — before it is too late — and not even the party hack Supremes can save things.