The Columbus Dispatch has this story about the new lawsuit filed by the Ohio Libertarian Party in State Supreme Court. The new lawsuit notes that Gary Johnson received more than 3% of the vote for president in Ohio last month. The suit is based on a part of the election code that says a group of voters who sponsor a presidential candidate who gets more than 3% can establish a new ballot-qualified party.
The story is somewhat flawed, because the reporter apparently did not contact the Libertarian Party to ask for a response to the Secretary of State’s comment on the lawsuit. The Secretary of State says the existing procedure for establishing a party has been upheld. But that is irrelevant; the new lawsuit is not about the petition requirement, but the alternate vote method. Also the Secretary of State says that the attorney for the Libertarian Party already conceded in another lawsuit that what the party is asking for is not valid. It is true that the party’s brief in another case suggested that the vote test method for a new group is unlikely to be recognized by the Secretary of State, but that brief said nothing further on that subject.
Section 3517.01 says, “A political party within the meaning of Title 35 of the Revised Code is any group of voters which, at the last preceding regular state election, polled for its candidate for nominees for presidential electors at least 3% of the entire vote cast…”. The sentence then goes on to say that a second method to establish a party is a 1% petition. The party depends on the first clause, not the second clause. The Johnson petition listed five voters who held themselves out as representing that petition, and it is they who are claiming that they meet the standard in the first clause. Another document, filed by the Libertarian Party, certifies that the individuals who filed the petition have permission to use the name “Libertarian Party” for their group. The law does not say that the first method requires a party label on the petition.
The LAW is the LAW — regardless of any MORON lawyers not correctly stating the LAW in their MORON briefs.
GET NEW COMPETENT lawyers in ALL New Age Ballot access cases.
Will SCOTUS get the post 2016 screwed up ballot access cases in time for the 2017-2020 elections ???
Doubtful due to the armies of MORON lawyers involved.
I have it on good authority that Demo Rep lost the only ballot access lawsuit he ever filed.
I GUESS that makes him a New Age MORON.
???
!!!
Are section headings considered part of the code?
If so, 3517.02 and 3517.03 should be amended since intermediate political parties no longer exist in Ohio.
Which groups of voters constitute the Ohio Democratic, Green, and Republican parties?
See the later comments by later courts that Demo Rep was correct.
It now takes DECADES for the court MORONS to detect their errors — due to the paralysis in the SCOTUS HACKS.
History made on BAN: after 8,745,498 posts in which he calls anyone who doesn’t win a ballot access case a New Age MORON, Demo Rep admits that he lost the only ballot access case he ever filed.
Does that make him a New Age MORON?
Of course not!
As it turns out, Demo Rep was correct! The Court got it wrong (MoRoNs).
Does it seem like there may be some kind of lesson here?
Of course not!
Post 8,745,499: MORON monster New Age gerrymander hack regime SCOTUS separate not equal Brown v. Board of Education. MORON.
How about nonstop worrying about the current UNEQUAL ballot access situation ???
— due to lots of past MORON SCOTUS opinions.
Every election is NEW.
Separate is NOT equal. Brown v. Bd of Ed (1954) — applying also to ballot access.
EQUAL ballot access tests.
Much too difficult for the MORON lawyers doing ballot access cases and especially the MORON SCOTUS HACKS.
History note – the SCOTUS morons once thought that there was some sort of *Federal common law* — See Swift v. Tyson 1842 —
it took the MORONS until 1938 Erie v. Railroad to overrule Swift as being *unconstitutional* — during which 96 years lots of Federal-State law in the courts got totally screwed up.
See the Constitution Annotated for the cases that one group of SCOTUS HACKS over-ruled an earlier group of SCOTUS HACKS — even in about 5-10 election law cases.
What lawyer — other than perhaps some TV lawyer (Perry Mason, Matlock, etc.) – has never lost a case ???
“What lawyer — other than perhaps some TV lawyer (Perry Mason, Matlock, etc.) – has never lost a case ???”
-Demo Rep, Dec. 22, 2016
It really feels like there must be some kind of lesson here.
Something about whether a reasonable, rational — not to say civil or friendly — person would say something like that, in relation to himself, while accusing anyone else who ever loses a case of being a New Age Moron, whatever that is.
I can’t quite put my finger on it.
Oh well. Brown v. Board.
Etc.
Etc.
Ad nauseum.
Love those juvenile MORONS who cherry pick stuff and add ZERO to get rid of the UNEQUAL ballot access laws in the USA.
OK, let’s just stick with the undisputed facts.
Demo Rep is a New Age MORON who has lost 100 percent of the ballot access cases he has ever filed.
Is it because he failed to cite Brown v. Board?
Impossible!
The only possible explanation is that he is a New Age monster INCOMPETENT hack gerrymander regime POSING as a sentient being.
This explains his robotic cadences and non-sequitorial repetition of words to which he ascribes magical powers.
Brown v. Board!
Gee, too tough for humanoid Demo Reps in the New Age horror regime.
Gee – Is Demo Rep Posing As one of those genius lawyers who has lost too many ballot access cases to count ???
100 percent!
Batting 1000.
–Demo Rep
Point of clarification: when I say ‘100 percent’, or ‘batting 1000’ I mean I’ve LOST every case I ever tried. Not won. Lost.
I know my weird abbreviations and obscure references might give readers the opposite impression. That’s why I want to make clear now: I have never — NEVER — won a ballot access case. And I have tried. I even cited Brown v. Bd. (separate not equal). Not sure why that didn’t work. I think the thing to do is keep saying it, anonymously, on a message board.
B v. B.!
B v. B.!
B v. B.!