On September 19, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to order the Michigan Secretary of State to either halt the ballot-printing process, or to put Gary Johnson on the ballot. The only presidential candidates who were ever put on the ballot by the U.S. Supreme Court just prior to an election have been George Wallace in 1968 and Eugene McCarthy in 1976. Also in 1980 Ohio asked the U.S. Supreme Court to remove John Anderson from the ballot, but the Court refused to do that.
Does this mean Johnson is off for sure or can the courts in Michigan make this happen? Or did the courts in Michigan already rule against Johnson and that’s why it went to the U.S. Supreme Court?
The latter
It is possible the 6th circuit could still put him on, or at least, after the election, rule that his exclusion was unlawful. The state at this point even refuses to say if it will count his write-in votes. The state has been refusing to answer that question ever since Johnson filed as a write-in candidate on September 7.
#2, the 6th circuit has not ruled against the Libertarian Party on the merits. All it has done is refuse to halt ballot-printing.
Didn’t their order make it sound like they would, though? And has the other lawsuit been appealed yet?
#5, the “other lawsuit” for Gary Johnson of Texas is being appealed to the 6th circuit. All the briefs will be in by the end of the day, September 19.
Has the state said whether it would count write in votes for Judge Gray? What about write in votes for Gary Johnson of Texas?
What second will the Mich ballots get printed and sent out to absentee voters ???
How about INSTANT attacks on all election laws and bureaucrats on 7 Nov 2012 — to END the nonstop last second court stuff – which the courts DO NOT like to have — for obvious reasons.
The MORON courts do NOT like having to declare elections as being UN-constitutional — to be redone with all the costs and chaos in the *system*.
—-
Again for any genius lawyers — each election is NEW and has ZERO to do with ANY thing since Adam and Eve — except the actual number of voters in the last election in the election area involved.
It would appear the Republicans have won this round.
“Sore Loser” laws don’t even make sense in the presidential election as all you are doing is voting for a slate of Electors who could vote for whoever they damn well please. Frustrating
Why isn’t sore loser laws, like term limits, in that the courts have said that states can’t regulate Federal candidates on the term limit issue.
shocker…this is too bad. I was hoping for 50- state ballot access, but it’s looking like 47 or 48 state ballot access instead…still an excellent year for the Libertarians w/ regards to B.A.
@7 I think they have decided not to count votes for the Texan Gary Johnson.
# 10 How many States ABSOLUTELY require each E.C. elector to vote according to the general election results ???
I.E. – If NOT so voting, then instant removal and replacement with possible criminal charges ???
The EVIL ANTI-Democracy E.C. *system* is quite EVIL super-dangerous enough without EVIL lunatic faithless E.C. electors in the States/DC.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
i.e. Will Civil W-A-R II start on the night of 6 Nov 2012 when some top EVIL moron shoots off its EVIL mouth ???
It is not an excellent year for Libertarians at 47 or 48. Bob Barr managed 45 and the ones he wasn’t on were smaller states. If the Republicans manage to keep Johnson off in Michigan, the LP will access to less electorates then in 2008.
Michigan really bothers me to know end. Every dirty trick imaginable has been used to keep Johnson off. The so called “Sore Loser” law should not apply as he already had withdrawn from the Republican nomination. They actually sat on the papers deliberately in order to invoke this obscure law.
I hope the LP’s sue the people responsible damages. I would sue them personally. This is a disgrace really. An absolute disgrace.
A greater problem in American society is the corruption of the judiciary. In matters such as this when a judge is appointed by a Republican or Democrat how do you think they are going to decide, when the corrupt two party duopoly is doing everything it can to exclude other choices ?
Even if they win their appointment to the bench by way of an election, 99.8% of the time they run as Republican or Democrat, again I see a conflict of interest. How they can say they are impartial when ruling on matters such as this ?
Pingback: U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Put Gary Johnson on the Michigan Ballot | ThirdPartyPolitics.us