On September 10, Citizen Outreach appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, in its lawsuit that argues that Nevada ballot access law really requires one set of petitions in March, and another hefty petition in June. Citizen Outreach is a conservative organization that says it only wants to remove Jon Ashjian from the Nevada ballot. For earlier coverage on this case, see here. If Citizen Outreach were successful, the Green Party candidate for Governor this year would also be removed from the ballot.
There is a logical problem with Citizen Outreach’s theory. Nevada’s April petition deadline for new parties was held unconstitutional in 1986 in Libertarian Party of Nevada v Swackhamer. If Citizens Outreach were correct, and Nevada requires petitions in March as well as in June, then Nevada law would have the same flaw all over again that caused the state to lose the 1986 ballot access case.
Are any of the parties actually aware of the 1986 case ???
If not, then they should obviously be informed.
*sniff sniff* Don Lake smells Coty Banks …….
and Red Phillips and Trent Hill wonder why some think that they are over playing the ‘issues’ card!
‘Issues’ as just more Public Relations steer manure!
CITIZEN OUTREACH FOUNDATION
OBJECTS & PURPOSES
Citizen Outreach, as described under “Objects and Purposes” of our Articles of Incorporation, “is a non-profit corporation organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes and any combination thereof within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.” The objects and purposes of the organization listed in Article III of the Articles of Incorporation include:
1.) Create, develop and promote the discussion of public policy issues
2.) Encourage public understanding and awareness of public policy issues
3.) Increase awareness and participation in the governmental process
Again the IAP isn’t involved in this case.
What is going on with the other lawsuit that Tim Fasano filed, Richard?
Why on earth would anyone sue to make ballot access MORE difficult??
The one that Tim Fasano filed was on better legal ground.
#5 It could be that they want Sharron Angle to win, and they’re willing to disenfranchise supporters of other candidates to make it happen. Republicans talk all the time about “personal responsibility”. Had they taken the personal responsibility to choose a candidate other than Angle, Harry Reid would be toast.
This outfit needs to change it’s name!
Yes, this ‘Tea Party of Nevada’ needs to change its name to the ‘Lying Incompetents Party’ instead.