Frank Moore is a write-in presidential candidate, who has been diligently attempting to file for declared write-in status in as many states as possible. He is likely to succeed in 25 states, which will probably be a record. However, on October 17, the Minnesota Elections Division rejected his write-in filing on 12th Amendment Grounds. The Minnesota Elections Division seems to not understand the 12th Amendment.
The letter says, “Dear Mr. Moore, thank you for submitting the document, Written Request by Write-in Candidates for Federal and State Office. Your document has been rejected because, for the Office of President and Vice President, the candidates must be residents of different states.”
This letter is mistaken for two completely separate reasons: (1) The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not require presidential and vice-presidential candidates to reside in different states. The only restriction is that if a presidential and vice-presidential candidate do both live in the same state, they can’t both receive electoral votes from THAT state; (2) Even setting that point aside, the residence of the candidate for president and vice-president is only material in December of the election year, when the electors meet and vote. To illustrate, in 2000, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush both lived in Texas when they were nominated. After being nominated, Cheney changed his voter registration from Texas to Wyoming, so that both he and Bush would be able to receive the Texas electoral votes.
Ironically, in 2004 a Minnesota elector did vote for someone for president, and someone for vice-president, who lived in the same state, the state of North Carolina. One Democratic elector, for reasons unknown, voted for John Edwards for both president and for vice-president. Congress counted that electoral vote.
Another point is that Minnesota in the past has placed teams of presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the November ballot, even though both individuals lived in the same state. The Socialist Workers Party ticket consisted of a New Yorker for president, and a New Yorker for vice-president, in 1968, and that team appeared on the Minnesota ballot. In 1968, a New York challenge was filed against the SWP ticket on the grounds that both lived in that state, but the challenge was defeated. The case was Application of Horowitz, 294 NYS 2d 69, affirmed, 294 NYS 2d 988.
They believe it may have been a case of where the elector just wrote the same name twice by mistake and didn’t step forward to admit it because of embarrassment.
Amazing, reach of the duopoly establishment!
———-Donald Raymond Lake
Is Ron Paul going to be on the ballot or be a write-in candidate?
You expect better of Minnesota – this looks like an election official trying to prove that he/she is ‘diligent’ and in fact proving that he/she hasn’t the mental equipment to occupy their current position.
Any Paul votes will not be counted in Minnesota – and will go to boost the ranks of the ‘scattered’.
Andrew saying what I was thinking! I am getting too kind and condesending to the &@%#&%$# establishment.
You’d think with a state with Minnesota’s ‘fair and balanced’ [sorry, could not resist] reputation and the home of non Dem and non GOP Governor and FORMER United State Senator Barkley [Independence Party] looking for a full term.
———– Donald Raymond Lake
I emailed the Minn. Sec. of State’s office last night explaining how they misapplied the law and asking that they correct their mistake and accept Mr. Moore as a write-in candidate.
If anyone else wants to contact them, here’s their contact page:
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=42
In 2005, the Minnesota legislature modified the procedure by which presidential electors cast their vote. Previously, the requirement was that the electors simply cast their votes in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the US and Minnesota. There was nothing in Minnesota law about a secret ballot, so it appears the meeting of electors in 2004 adopted that procedure on an ad hoc basis.
The new law requires that the electors state who they intend to vote for, and that they then vote by public ballot. If they fail to vote for the candidates selected by their party, then their vote is invalidated, and they are replaced by an alternate.
The law was obviously changed in response to the Democratics goof up in 2004, and it appears that the Secretary of State thought the intent of the law was to ensure that two persons from the same state could not be voted on, rather than simply that electors follow the dictates of the party central committee. In any case, since the law specifies that that electors must vote for the candidates of their party, it wouldn’t apply to write-in candidates.
Under the 12th Amendment, I see nothing wrong with a party naming the same person as the presidential and vice presidential candidate. If it were John Edwards, they could have campaign buttons and posters made with him admiring himself in a mirror. If a Democratic Edwards-Edwards campaign carried Minnesota, not only would the Democratic electors be permitted to vote twice for Edwards, they would be obligated under the new law to vote for Edwards and Edwards.
Minnesota also changed their presidential election laws to provide that parties name a slate of alternate electors, but failed to extend that privilege/responsibility to write-in candidates.
If the National Popular Vote initiative were in effect, and California were a party to it, and the Moore-Block ticket prevailed in the national popular vote, who would the California presidential electors vote for?