On May 19, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove heard Libertarian Party of Kentucky v Grimes, e.d., 3:15cv-86. The issue is Kentucky’s failure to have any procedure for an unqualified party to transform itself into a qualified party in advance of any particular election. The oral argument lasted 90 minutes and the judge indicated he will rule fairly soon. The Constitution Party is a co-plaintiff. Another issue in the case is that the only way a group can become a qualified party is by polling 2% for President; the vote for all other offices doesn’t count. There were 25 people in the audience.
Beating the dead horse some more —
Every election is NEW — regardless of ALL of the MORON lawyers and judges involved in ballot access cases since 1776 — or even the DARK AGE 1200s — election of the English House of Commons.
Another MORON beating a dead horse.
Demo Rep… what is with your obsession with insulting people to try to legitimize your point? You had a legitimate post until you called people morons.
Anybody that needs to insult people just comes across as simply childish, immature and irrelevant. Are you 7 years old? Can you just stop posting and let the adults have an intelligent conversation? Your posts contribute nothing.
I’m sure these judges and lawyers, who have spent at least two years in graduate school, have an IQ twice that of your own. See I can insult people too. You’re nothing special dude.
Demo Rep did not post here for quite a while. Then he or she came back. Too bad.
The various junior high school folks on this list can try to make ANY sense of the MORON SCOTUS opinions from Williams v. Rhodes onwards regarding the MORON SCOTUS attempts to justify the various UNEQUAL ballot access schemes in the States since 1968.
Every election is NEW — try and find any MORON judge who can detect such FACT/Principle.
The adjective in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 is EQUAL — try and find any MORON judge who can detect such adjective regarding ballot access in elections.
Separate is NOT equal. Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — good enough for schools — good enough for ballot access ??? Duh.
Too many MORONS to count on Mother Earth.
See the earlier MORONS who loved divine right of kings, titles of nobility, etc.
See the Constitution Annotated at the end — a list of the many cases where one bunch of SCOTUS hacks OVER-ruled an earlier bunch of SCOTUS hacks.
The ENTIRE line of ballot access cases must be OVER-ruled — IF and WHEN a genius lawyer (IQ 101 or more) has ANY brain cells and makes the proper arguments to the current SCOTUS hacks.
IF and when there is EQUAL ballot access then there will be an immediate need for other election reforms —
i.e. NO primaries, etc. —
P.R. and NONPARTISAN App.V.
The main MORON SCOTUS ballot access cases —
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971)
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986)
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992)
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008)
Homework for junior high school folks — how much ARBITRARY UNEQUAL stuff in such JUNK opinions ???