A New York Daily News story of February 9 says Mayor Mike Bloomberg still has bleak prospects for winning the nomination of any of the state’s ballot-qualified parties. The story quotes the Mayor as saying at this point he has no idea how he will run for re-election. If he petitions as an independent candidate, he will be at the bottom of a confusingly laid-out ballot. It is always possible he could file a lawsuit, and potentially win that lawsuit, that the Constitution requires a random order of candidates on the ballot. Such lawsuits have won in the 7th circuit, the 8th circuit, and in U.S. District Courts in New Mexico and Oklahoma, as well as in the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.
When the Constitution was amended to limit the number of terms a president could hold office, one provision said it would not apply to the person in office at time of approval.
And when various term limits bills have passed, there is (at least usually) a provision that incumbents at time of passage are not included.
Does it not make sense that, when a term limits law is repealed, the repeal should not apply to the incumbent?
Repealing term limits just so Bloomberg could run again was raw corruption and blatant favoritism, and I hope he is faced with all kinds of obstacles, not just a lack of party affiliation.
I think NY city term limits were already in place before Bloomberg was Mayor. They were the reason Rudy Giuliani couldn’t run for re-election in 2001.
Once again I have to ask: Why does Mayor Bloomberg even desire a third term?
“If he petitions as an independent candidate, he will be at the bottom of a confusingly laid-out ballot.”
awwwww poor Mike