On August 30, U.S. District Court W. Keith Watkins upheld the action of the Alabama Secretary of State in 2016, when he put Rocky De La Fuente on the November ballot as an independent candidate for president, and then a few weeks later noticed that De La Fuente had appeared on the Democratic presidential primary ballot that year, and removed him.
The decision is only seven pages. Judge Watkins tried to explain why U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court that said states cannot add to the constitutional qualifications to run for Congress, does not apply to “sore loser” laws. He wrote, “At root, the sore loser law regulates how to access the ballot, not who can access it.”
One could have made the same argument to uphold congressional term limits. One could have said, in defense of state laws barring ballot access to candidates who had already been elected to three terms in Congress, that the law only regulates access to the ballot. One could have said the way to access the ballot is not to have already been elected to Congress three times.
The fifth, ninth, and tenth circuits have all ruled that barring congressional candidates from the ballot because they are not registered to vote is impermissible. But applying Judge Watkins’ argument, one could have said that a law requiring a candidate to be registered to vote is only a law telling the candidate how to access the ballot, not a qualification. Judge Watkins did not mention the three circuit decisions striking down laws requiring congressional candidates to be registered voters.
The decision says nothing about the fact that Lyndon LaRouche had run in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary in Alabama, and had also been allowed to appear on the general election ballot as an independent that year, even though the sore loser law had existed back then.
The decision says nothing about the fact that the true candidates being voted on by the voters in a presidential general election are the candidates for presidential elector, not presidential candidates.
Treating elector candidates as the “true candidates” is likely to cause voter confusion (see Arizona 1972 and Alabama 1960). Some persons erroneously assert the John Kennedy was the popular vote winner in 1960.
It’s a plain fact that the electors are the true candidates, whether that confuses people or not. Article II, and the election codes of all the states, establish this. The Alabama election code says, “When electors for the President and Vice President are to be elected, the names of the candidates for President and Vice-President shall be listed on the ballot, but not the names of the electors.”
On the ballot, the names of the President and Vice-President are there to serve as labels for competing slates of presidential elector candidates.
What USA *judge* (on any USA court) is NOT an appointed robot D/R HACK ???
One more reason to abolish the more and more INSANE Electoral College stuff.
Nonpartisan nominations and elections of all elected executive officers and all judges.
In Texas, independent and write-in presidential candidates file for president (they have to receive consent from the so-called elector candidates).
The latest opinion is simply to dismiss the case. It was not necessary to rehash the previous decision.
The decision on the restraining order last October covers the 1992 LaRouche candidacy. Just because a previous SOS failed to follow state law does not mean that there is due process issue when a SOS does follow the law.
Presidential Elector candidates, regardless of which presidential candidate they are pledged to, remain free to vote for any person constitutionally qualified for the office, regardless of whether that candidate appears on the ballot of any state – the names of presidential candidates appearing on a ballot is mere informational advertising and not binding on an elector.