Kentucky State Senate leader Damon Thayer has introduced a bill to let individuals run for two federal offices simultaneously. See this story.
Kentucky State Senate leader Damon Thayer has introduced a bill to let individuals run for two federal offices simultaneously. See this story.
After reading the story I get the impression that now people can run for two Federal offices, but many state have outlawed running for two offices at the same time like Montana. Montana still has term limits of congress in their Constitution even though the Supreme court ruled otherwise.
I don’t think it is clear cut.
It is a violation of the US Constitution for a person to serve in Congress, and simultaneously hold another office, including President of the United States or state office (Article I, Section 6).
The Kentucky legislature has an affirmative obligation to provide for the elections of US representatives and senators.
Rand Paul is qualified to be elected to both senate seats, and all 6 congressional districts. Could he run for 6 representative seats and a senate seat simultaneously? He could if Kentucky election law permitted him to.
But Kentucky could say one election at a time. Their justification would be that if Paul were elected to more than one seat, he would have to choose which to serve in, but then Kentucky would face the expense of a special election for the other seats, and would be unrepresented in Congress for some period of time. If he decided to not take the senate seat, then Kentucky would face the possibility of corruption as occurred in neighboring Blagobama.
But Kentucky would not be adding a qualification or requirement for office, but rather enforcing the prohibition that is in the US Constitution.
The issue of the senate seat and the President is somewhat more complex. The office of President of the United States is not on the ballot, it is the office of presidential electors. Arguably, they are simply running on the slogan of “If elected, we’ll vote for Rand Paul”. But the effect would be the same if the Rand electors were elected, along with his senate re-election. But it could be argued that it would be unfair to let him run for president in other states, but not Kentucky.
Without a change, Paul might be able to win a lawsuit in 2016 once he were nominated. But the other Republican candidates might whisper, whisper, that he might not be on the Kentucky ballot, or suggest that he should decide which office he really wants. A lawsuit in the fall would draw plenty of attention to the issue, and some voters would decide that it was ethically or morally wrong, or a matter of legal trickery, even when he won.
In the article, it is a political adviser to Paul that has the opinion that there is no change needed. But it would be part of his job to appear confident about Paul.
If a law is passed now, it will be noted casually in the press, much like Lyndon’s law passed by the Texas legislature in 1959.
*****
The bill (SB 205) is poorly drafted since it would permit a candidate to run for US senate and representative at the same time; or Congress and a statewide office. Texas law is more narrowly drawn, with the provision limited to President and Vice President.
*****
It is not necessarily wrong for a state to let a local official to serve in the legislature. Montana has a bunch of very low population counties, a large part-time legislature, and a not so large population. A county commissioner could get a neighbor to mind his cattle; and the county clerk to answer the phone; while he is in Helena.
The practice is quite ordinary in West Virginia.
*****
The current Kentucky law would appear to permit a candidate to run in all 6 congressional districts. The limitation is based on the physical ballot, which would be different in each district. The guy who is running for Congress in multiple states should file for all 6 seats in Kentucky.
*****
California’s restriction on a candidate expressing a preference for a non-qualified party is unconstitutional. Forcing a candidate to express an opinion about more popular parties is undistinguishable from Gralike where a candidate was forced to express an opinion about a popular legislative proposal.
It is not a modicum of support issue. There is no implication of support by the party that the candidate prefers. A candidate for Secretary of State pays a fee and collects 65 signatures, which is no different than a candidate for Superintendent of Public instruction. No difference other than a slight variation in the filing fee (and if an in lieu of petition is used, qualification is identical for the two offices). Those 65 signatures represent the modicum of support.
A political party may back a candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction with millions of dollars of support, and actively campaign against who says that he prefers the party.