On January 15, attorneys for the Connecticut Secretary of State filed a 15-page brief in defense of the ban on out-of-state circulators. The state brief says that Connecticut ballot access procedures for minor parties and independents are easier than the procedures of most states. This is not true and can be rebutted. Between the period 1992 and 2012, the Connecticut general election ballot only had 3.2 presidential candidates on the ballot (in addition to the Democratic and Republican nominees), whereas the average state had 4.4 such candidates. Connecticut was 36th among the 51 jurisdictions that participate in presidential elections. This data is in the June 1, 2014 print issue of Ballot Access News.
To show how difficult Connecticut ballot access is, only Gary Johnson successfully petitioned for President in Connecticut in 2012. The Green Party nominee has not appeared on the Connecticut ballot in either of the last two presidential elections.
The government brief also says that the Libertarian Party was able to place its presidential nominee on the ballot in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. But if the state had included the entire history of the Libertarian Party, it would have had to admit that the Libertarian Party has failed to place its presidential nominee on the Connecticut ballot in four of the eleven presidential elections it participated in: 1972, 1976, 1984, and 2008.
The state also says that challenges to petitions are common in Connecticut, and if there is a challenge, and it goes to court, and the circulator lives out-of-state, it will take longer for that circulator to arrive in Connecticut and that would delay such lawsuits. The state brief does not even discuss the rights of petition circulators themselves.
1. Each State is a NATION-STATE – for its internal politics.
1776 DOI
1777 Articles of Confederation
1783 USA-Brit Peace Treaty
1787 Const esp Art. VII.
2. Each election is NEW.
3. Too many MORONS to count doing the election law cases since 1968.
Thus – NO foreigner has ANY rights to intervene in the election process (i.e. nominations and elections) of a sovereign nation-state.
The 1st Amdt has zero to do with such internal nominations and elections inside each State by *foreign* folks.
See also Art. IV — i.e. the citizens of each State are for various purposes foreign to each other.
Too many SCOTUS morons to count since 1789 — regarding the NATION-State status of each of the 50 States.
See the foreign Texas regime becoming a State in the U.S.A. in 1845.
—-
For example — try to have a U.S.A. citizen intervene in any nomination / election stuff in Russia.
See what happens to such U.S.A. citizen.