On October 10, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Piersol issued his written opinion in South Dakota Libertarian Party v Gant, 14-cv-4132. This is the case over whether the state should have put the Libertarian Party’s nominee for Public Service Commissioner on the November ballot. The judge had denied relief on August 28, but only now has issued a written opinion. Here is the 12-page opinion.
One of the most important parts of the decision has been relegated to a footnote. See footnote 4, which says that the party’s own bylaws prohibit it from nominating a non-member. Generally, for a political party freedom of association lawsuit to succeed, there must be a conflict between a party’s bylaws and a state law. That is not the case in this lawsuit.
As hard as it is to get ballot position, why would the Libertarian Party or any 3rd party not take the opportunity to have a candidate running under its label in a General Election?
I would think the fact such candidate is not an enrolled party member should be moot – especially if the candidate is standing for positions in accordance with the principles or platform of the party.
What What part of the nearly DEAD USA Const says that a X percent FACTION of ALL Electors have a constitutional RIGHT to have the FACTION’s candidates on the general election ballots ???
Good luck finding such X percent.
Too many SCOTUS MORONS to count ???
The candidate re-registered into the Libertarian Party a few minutes before he was nominated (in the party’s convention). But the state took the position that until the voter registration card is processed, it isn’t in effect yet.
Thanks for the explanation.
Too bad the party could not get a Court order demanding the state put the nominee on.