On November 16, U.S. District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes ruled against the state of Arkansas, in the lawsuit over whether a state can remove a party from the ballot just because it did poorly in the presidential race, even though it did better in other races. Green Party of Arkansas v Daniels, 4:09-cv-695.
Attorneys for Arkansas had argued that ballot access precedents make it clear that the law is constitutional, and therefore the case should be dismissed without a trial. But the judge cleared the way for a trial. The case was filed earlier this year by the Arkansas Green Party. It polled 20.47% for U.S. Senate in 2008, and elected a state legislator, but only got .32% for President in 2008. The ruling is seven pages. The case now proceeds to the evidence-gathering stage.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on how tough state laws can be, when they write an election law to determine whether a party should remain on the ballot. Arkansas requires a party to poll 3% for President in a presidential election year; if it doesn’t, it goes off the ballot.
Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election.
Too much for MORON lawyers and especially super-MORON judges to understand.
To Demo Rep:
Arkansas law specifically bases the status of a party on the results of “a prior election.” I guess that “morons” understand the law better than you do.