On July 20, the North Carolina Constitution Party filed a federal lawsuit to regain a spot on the November ballot for three of its nominees. The State Board of Elections removed them because they had run in Democratic or Republican primaries this year, and had lost those primaries; then the Constitution Party had nominated them in its convention. Poindexter v Strach, e.d., 5:18cv-366. Here is the eleven-page Complaint.
The basis for the lawsuit is due process. On the date the Constitution Party nominated the three candidates, there was no law saying a convention party could not nominate persons who had earlier run in a major party primary. The law didn’t exist until a few days after the nominating convention. Two of the candidates are running for partisan county office and one for the legislature. One had run in a Democratic primary, and two in a Republican primary.
The mystification / perversion of *due process* in the courts has been going on since the 1776 era State constitutions — attempting to make it stop retroactive lawa, to require equal laws, etc., etc., etc.
Again – see the book –
Sources of Our Liberties ed by Richard L. Perry (ABA, 1959) – BEFORE SCOTUS went leftwing NUTS in the 1960s. (Legal history of USA Amdts 1-8) – IE due process in the USA 5th Amdt.
@DR,
It is not clear to me what you are advocating.
If you were Judge Rep, how would you rule in the North Carolina case.
Complaint
21. N.C. Sess. Law 2018-13 states in pertinent part that, “An individual whose name appeared on the ballot in a primary election preliminary to the general election shall not be eligible to have that individual’s name placed on the general election ballot as a candidate for the new political party for the same office in that year.”
—
Question if such law applies to a FUTURE *primary election preliminary to the general election*
— ie certified question to NC SCT if possible — statutory interpretation stuff.
Any due process stuff does NOT apply to *civil* retroactive laws — one more FATAL defect in ALL Constitutions — used often by the gerrymander OLIGARCHS — esp in tax laws.
Judge Winger will bring up the various election law cases in which the courts DID STOP retroactive stuff via the DP Cl. In advance – ALL such cases are perversions.
Thus — must add to ALL consts —
NO [civil or criminal] retroactive law shall be enacted.
— force the gerrymander OLIGARCH hacks to be much more careful in drafting laws.
SCOTUS ruled long ago that the magic *ex post facto* phrase applies only to criminal stuff — for English legal historical reasons. See the SOL book.
Time stuff is a part of the LAW making classifications of stuff — past, present, future.
Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States lists powers not delegated to the States. One such thing is a pass an ex post facto law. It does not specify criminal or civil law. The key factor is what did the ratifiers believe it to mean. SCOTUS can say that it just pertains to criminal law, but it would be beneficial to know if the ratifiers thought it applied to all law. Based on their wording, it seems like they did.
JUDGE CC —
See the Constitution Annotated — zillion SCOTUS constitutional law cases — by Art-Sec-Cl/Para.
At end –
Earlier cases later OVER-ruled.