A Superior court in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, will hear oral arguments in Brody v North Carolina Board of Elections on May 20. This is the case in which an independent candidate for the legislature argues that he should not need any petition to be on the November ballot this year, because he ran for the same office in November 2008 as an independent candidate, and in 2008 he polled 30% of the vote. He has paid the filing fee this year and argues that he has already shown a modicum of voter support.
As far as is known, this is an interesting argument that has never before been made by any independent candidate in any state. The principle that parties deserve to be on the ballot automatically in the current election, based on their share of the vote in the previous election, is very widespread in the U.S. Political parties in North Carolina remain ballot-qualified if they poll 2% for President or Governor, so the plaintiff-candidate, Mark Brody, says his previous vote ought to mean something.
Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election — regardless of ALL prior MORON cases — due to brain dead MORON lawyers and even worse MORON judges.
I knew you’d say that.
I had to think about this for a moment when a reporter asked me about it, it’s so novel, but had to conclude that individuals should have at least the rights parties enjoy.
What happened in the FIRST election using OFFICIAL ballots in the various regimes — late 1880s – early 1890s in most State regimes ???
Answer — the party hacks used some grandfather type party hack stuff in past election results in the election laws to automatically put the Donkeys and Elephants on the NEW OFFICIAL ballots.
Everybody else got screwed — aided by the armies of party hack MORON judges.
Thus — a mere about 120 years of MORON ballot access laws and cases — due to such MORON judges — brain dead unable to detect the EQUAL in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
Pingback: Is there ONE solution out there that offers web conferencing, remote support, and remote access? | Internet Web Conferencing
I remember Ms. Burrows asking me about this issue when she wrote her article for the Carolina Journal, at the time I was not as coherent as I’d have liked to have been being that I was a bit sick, but I still believe that Mr. Brody does have a point. At the time I couldn’t figure out what that requirement should be, or how it would be decided, but it makes since that that candidate should be able to retain access just like a Party can from election to election based on the prior showing. Yet, my question is if the State was to go to a Party requirement that only required a Party to run a candidate for Statewide office (or some other non-percentage based requirement) would some percentage based requirement still work for the independent or would this cause issues? I imagine it would work, but I haven’t been able to put a lot of thought into it at this time. Your thoughts are appreciated Mr. Winger and Mr. Haugh!!