On January 19, the Delaware House Administration passed HB 11, which is intended to ban fusion. However, the bill is more restrictive than that. It makes it illegal for any political party to nominate someone who is not a member of that party. The bill does exempt presidential and vice-presidential candidates, however.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, on page 215, “Were the State to provide that only Party members might be selected as the Party’s chosen nominees for public office, such a prohibition of potential association with nonmembers would clearly infringe upon the rights of the Party’s members under the First Amendment to organize with like-minded citizens in support of common political goals.” The sponsor of the bill, Representative Earl Jaques, says his goal is to stop any candidate’s name from being listed more than once on the ballot. It doesn’t follow logically that, therefore, he should tell parties that they can’t nominate a non-member.
Tashjian was one more case silently overruled by the 2008 WA State top 2 primary case.
How many of the party hacks in legislative bodies are logical ???
Think of them as ARROGANT EVIL control freaks (especially in all election related stuff) and act accordingly.
P.R. and App.V. — NO party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed or wanted.
The party hack control freaks can assemble in a jail where they naturally fit in.
Demo Rep
You stated that Tashjian Case was overruled. I look the
case up and could not find it was overruled. Please give
your source?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
I do not agree that Tashjian was overruled silently by any newer US Supreme Court opinion.
The SCOTUS party hacks are silently stealthy in lots of their JUNK opinions.
They do a series of cases and then lo and behold declare that the such latest series of cases has made the old stuff obsolete.
Who says the SCOTUS folks are logical or consistent about ANY thing in the law ???
Today affirmative action — tomorrow NO affirmative action, etc. etc. etc.
To expand a bit —
Nominations by PUBLIC Electors for candidates for PUBLIC office is PUBLIC business.
Do party hack officers (precinct folks to State party chairs) take an oath to uphold the U.S.A. Const — Art. VI ???
What are the PUBLIC legislative, executive and/or judicial powers of party hack officers in each State of the Union ???
See the SCOTUS 1989 Eu case — PUBLIC stuff versus internal clubby party hack stuff.
i.e. What in Hell are PUBLIC funds being used to elect PRIVATE clubby party hack officers of PRIVATE oligarchy groups – aka special interest gangs ???
A blatant violation of Art. IV, Sec. 4 — Republican FORM of Government clause ??? Duh.
Of course, this is way too difficult for the MORON SCOTUS folks to understand.