On September 7, the Kentucky Libertarian and Constitution Parties filed this request for reconsideration in the Sixth Circuit, in the case over Kentucky’s definition of “political party.”
On September 7, the Kentucky Libertarian and Constitution Parties filed this request for reconsideration in the Sixth Circuit, in the case over Kentucky’s definition of “political party.”
would this change their ballot access for this year?
Libertarians are already on this year for President. I don’t think the Constitution Party is. The CP stands to gain more from a favorable ruling in 2016 but they both stand to gain in future years,
Thanks Kris
I would like to attend the hearing in court. Ky law discourages any serious candidate from running as anything but a D or an R. Major party legislative candidates need just two signatures and have the filing fee paid by the party. Any other political group needs 50 to 200 times as many signatures and must pay $100 to $500 filing fees out of pocket. A party does not pay for petition or campaign expenses either. As a result most candidates end up on establishment ballots. The result is the establishment incumbent monopoly. The 99% are not represented by D and R candidates.
I am running for state senate and had to pay the filing fee myself. Whoever told you the party pays for it is lying.
Neither does the party pay for any campaign expenses for most candidates, although they have run some ads for some, but not for me. They tend to play favorites, and if you are someone who follows ballot-access.org, the chances of you being on their “nice” list is very slim.
Attention all MORON lawyers in these ballot access cases —
1. Each election is NEW.
2. Separate is NOT equal.
3. EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.
All of the grandfather stuff for the Donkeys/Elephants since official ballots in 1888-1890 is oligarchial — a subversion of having Republican Form of Governments in Art. IV, Sec. 4.
1. The ship has sailed for the 2016 decision. The panel decision sunk the ability to field more candidates this year. The intent of the petition is to open the door for future cycles. We are concerned about the precedent this panel decision set across the Sixth Circuit. It is a recipe to stick it to minor parties.
2. LP and Gary is on the KY ballot. He is expected to poll above 2%, which will guarantee automatic ballot access in future cycles — for the next 4 years. That fixes the LP through 2020. CPKY is in a different boat. But again, the ship this year has sailed. We intend to help them in future cycles though.
3. We offered to include the Greens, but they declined to join in this suit. It doesn’t look like Jill will hit 2% in November, so this probably mattered to them, but again they did not want to participate.
4. Rich: there are no more hearings unless the court agrees to rehear this en banc, or we take it up to the Supreme Court and they grant review. There was a hearing in May in the district court, and both LPKY and CPKY put it on their Facebook page.
5. Larry West, the game playing is atrocious…..
6. DemoRep: rather sick of the horse you have beaten dead, multiple times over. Courts rule on evidence and precedent. Your invitation to commit malpractice by trying to raise an argument that cannot be established in law or fact is, as always, declined. You are free, as always, to go to law school, graduate, pass the bar, and then invest time, resources, and effort, and raise these issues when you have a license to practice, putting your own neck on the line.