On June 8, two Republican nominees for presidential elector from Nevada filed a federal lawsuit, asking that “None of the Above” be removed from the November 2012 ballot and future years. The case is Townley v State of Nevada, 3:12-cv-00310. Here is the 16-page complaint. Besides the elector candidates, the complaint lists nine voter plaintiffs.
Starting in 1976, Nevada has printed “none of the above” on primary and general election ballots, but only for statewide office. The lawsuit argues that because a vote for “None of the above” has no legal effect, the voters who vote for “None of the above” are being harmed, because their vote has no effect. The complaint says if a victory by “None of the above” had any legal consequences, then it would be constitutional. The complaint suggests that the law could theoretically provide that if “None of the above” wins, then the office should be vacant. It says that also, theoretically, the law could provide for a run-off when “None of the above” gets the most votes. But since the law in reality doesn’t do either of those things, the Complaint says voters who vote for “None of the above” are being discriminated against.
One must assume that because two of the state’s Republican Party electors are co-plaintiffs, this lawsuit has the informal backing of the Republican Party of Nevada.
Usually a case is assigned randomly to a judge shortly after it is filed. This case still doesn’t seem to have been assigned to a judge. First the case had been assigned to Judge Edward Reed, a semi-retired Carter appointee. He refused the case, which semi-retired judges are free to do. Then the case was assigned by the Chief Judge to Judge Larry R. Hicks, a Bush Jr. appointee. But the docket says the order transferring the case to Judge Hicks was erroneous, and the case went back to the Chief Judge. As of the morning of June 21, the Chief Judge hasn’t re-assigned it.
Wow, just when you thought Republicans could not hate freedom any more than they already do, they come along and prove you wrong….
How wrong headed can they be?
None of the above should be on EVERY ballot in EVERY state!
Amen! Amen! Amen!
Pingback: “Two Republican Candidates for Presidential Elector in Nevada File Lawsuit to Remove ‘None of the Above’ from November 2012 Ballot” | Election Law Blog
@1 & 2 You are so correct. In fact, we should debate the matter here, and the winner of the debate will represent all future posts by all three of us. 😉
This seems like one of those suits that should get thrown out, since my vote does count as None Of The Above. All states should have NOTA. There are some that have no preference as a ballot line for president.
@5 & 6
Agreed. NOTA would be the perfect response to the two choices currently available in Nevada.
Once NOTA elected as elector, either those in charge or me personally, will go head to head in the debate on the important issues facing my fellow electors.
I am so pleased everyone around here likes my name and I will be pleased to represent all three of you.
Go NOTA!
If/when I win, of course I will stand aside and let any of you three knowledgeable citizens speak on my behalf on all future subject matters!
Very truly yours,
NOTA
I do consider all three of you to be my superior, and much more intelligent than me, so please do share more of your wisdom so everyone will know why I was elected!
Very truly yours,
NOTA
#6, there are four candidates on the Nevada ballot in November for president (other than NOTA). Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode are on.
Normally NOTA says little or nothing, but I have to spread some credit to make sure everyone knows how I got here, and credit to where credit is due.
Best,
NOTA
Next, I plan a debate between myself and AOTA (all of the above). I do hope all you lovelies will be listening, AOTA is such a crowded field!
Thanks, love you too.
Signed,
AOTA
@10 Unfair!
@10 Yes, we are all better than NOTA! I speak only for myself, and not all the other AOTAs.
@15 Let’s make peace and work together;
AOTA/NOTA for president! (or visa versa)
I guess we’ll have to have a vote.
Thanks you, AOTA. You know that I think you should be on bottom don’t you? 😉
@10 Jolly good show Richard! I’ll take all four of them on. And since I’m the only one who isn’t a male (I’m not female either, I guess) I would certainly stand out in the crowd – as long as AOTA isn’t allowed here.
@5 Nobody even knows who AOTA is, so they should not be allowed on any state’s ballots!
Richard, please BLOCK the posts of AOTA! Nobody wants to read that c***, and besides *I* am the only legitimate ballot qualified name between the two of us!
Orly,
And Democrats don’t hate freedom?
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — for adults.
NOTA is for pre-school folks in their baby cribs.
Bob,
Under Republicans, people oppress people. Under Democrats, it is the other way around.
And please don’t confuse me with Orly 😛
Ogle (AOTA/NOTA)
Please go debate voices in your head somewhere else. I suggest crazyforliberty.com. I think you will love their comment section — 100% free speech, even for commercial spammers such as yourself!
None of the Above ought to be a choice on the ballot for every office for every election. If None of the Above wins a new election should be held or perhaps the office should remain vacant.
Pingback: Links 6/22/12 « naked capitalism
@25 AOTA has a good point. Why not allow AOTA, and then all the candidates win, vote as a committee and split the pay between themselves?
In Nevada, the ballot actually says “None of these candidates.” Nobody should sue to require ballot rotation.