The Durango, Colorado Herald of January 17 has this story about the pending lawsuit against a Colorado law that keeps independent candidates off the ballot if they have been registered members of a political party during the 17 months before the election. This case, Riddle v Secretary of State, has received far more publicity than most ballot access lawsuits do. Generally newspapers don’t cover such lawsuits until there is a decision.
I think the reason this is getting publicity by the media is because the candidates here ALREADY hold office. The media has a tendency to accept as serious only those who have demonstrated an ability to get elected – something most independent or 3rd party candidates don’t have.
I also think there is a wider picture here. Neither of these candidates are members of, or are they desiring to hold office as a member of a 3rd party. Both are/were “independent” Perhaps my theory is flawed, but I still content that “independent” candidates are taken more seriously than are candidates of 3rd parties – and I’m not talking about “one person” 3rd parties such as the Connecticut For Lieberman party (or whatever it was called). Again, my theory my be flawed, but I feel the media here is giving more credence to these candidates because each is/was an “independent.”
Each election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election — or anything else since Adam and Eve came along.
Much too difficult for MORON lawyers and judges to understand.