Montana Democratic Party Wants Green Party to be Off Ballot During Appeal in the Montana Supreme Court
According to this story, the Montana Democratic Party is trying to persuade a state trial judge to keep the Green Party off the ballot for now, even though the Montana Supreme Court will be deciding soon whether to put it on the ballot. The Democratic Party argues that the Montana Supreme Court is not likely to give the party any relief. The Secretary of State wants to leave the Green Party on the ballot for now, pending the outcome of the Montana Supreme Court decision.
How many EVIL machinations near ballot printing deadlines ??? — to get past the coming election.
Too many to count ???
What century before AUTOMATIC NEW ELECTIONS at the expense OF ORGANIZED GANGSTER DEFENDANTS ???
—
PR and AppV
In this age of high tech, voters ought to be allowed to print out their own ballots with whichever names of candidates that they choose.
Walter, That’s the way it was before the so-called “Australian ballot,” hence the term “ticket.” Parties would print their own tickets containing their candidate slates and pass them out to voters to use as ballots. But, that led to stuffing the ballot boxes. I agree that with modern technology, we should be able to mitigate that issue.
The United Coalition USA has been coordinating campaigns, advanced decision-making and communication under pure proportional representation (PPR) among team players for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works perfectly fine.
The party bosses who operate under plurality voting and structure have brought more conflict, hostility, dysfunction and disenfranchisement and they are sure to bring more of the same.
Look back at the Jill Stein and Gary Johnson efforts to remain divided in 2012 and 2016 as examples of the ongoing failure that the plurality psychogy has brought their prospective efforts.
The world One Party is the political party that is able to unite the whole.
http://www.allpartysystem.com/one.php
The SOS has filed their opening brief.
The SOS claims that the Democratic Party and individual plaintiffs do not have standing. The Democrats claim that they will have to spend more money if they have to educate voters. There was no testimony from the individuals as to their alleged injury, and a campaign official said that he didn’t think that the Green Party would get many votes.
The complaint was not filed until April 2, 11 days after the SOS certified the petition. The SOS did not review any signatures, since that task is up to county election officials. There is a petition challenge provision in Montana law, where petitions may be challenged at the county level, but the plaintiffs did not take that opportunity, though they were aware that a petition would be submitted in February.
County election officials certified roughly 70% of the signatures submitted, so it is not apparent that the county election officials did not scrutinize the petitions, and the Democrats have not sued any county election officials for any errors or omissions. In fact it appears the Democrats are not claiming that the petition failed the statutory scheme for certifying party qualification since it is a result of the Democrats inaction in not challenging the petition in a timely fashion. Instead they are claiming that the petition was defective. Under such a claim, they have to have an injury, which they base on a property right to not expend money on political efforts – even though that is the fundamental purpose of a political party.
The SOS also says that the issue of party qualification is non-judiciable, and an interference in the executive branch’s duties performed under legislative authority.
The SOS also says that the exclusion of certain signatures was erroneous. The SOS says that the signatures on sheets signed by a particular circulator should not be rejected, even though two signatures were apparently witnessed by another person. The two signers testified that they supported Green Party ballot access and willingly signed the petition.
Other signatures were disqualified because they did not include a date, even though the statute does not require a date – but the petition form included a space for a date.
Finally, the SOS claims that the district court should not have accepted the attorney from Perkins Coie (a non-Montana firm) because he had already been involved in numerous Montana cases, and the Montana-based lawyer had the necessary skills and experience to represent the Democrats in a case based solely on Montana law.
The Montana Republican Legislative Campaign Committee (MRLCC) has sought to intervene, or alternatively file an amicus brief. They had sought to do so in district court, but had been denied on the basis that the Green Party adequately represented their interest! The Green Party has dropped their cross-appeal. The Supreme Court had granted the MRLCC the opportunity to file an amicus brief.
Before the so-called “Australian ballot* —
GANGSTER *BOSSES* CONTROL politics —
vote the colored (red, blue, whatever) party ticket (with gangster boss agents watching) or get purged – lose job, etc.
—
PR and AppV
@WZ, JB
When political parties printed ballots, they would print them with colors (such as red or blue) so that partisans could be identified. Voters would be given a free lunch in exchange for accepting a ballot. Fake ballots would be printed, which would claim to be the party ticket, but would substitute down ballot candidates. Opposing parties would try to disrupt distribution of parties. Instead of lawyer keeping parties and candidates off the ballot, toughs would beat up supporters of the other party, and throw the ballots in the river or burn them. Newspapers might also print ballots, claiming to include often-mentioned candidates. But this would be a news judgment, and papers were more overtly partisan, and they might be named the ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or ‘Whig’. There was also the problem of ballot stuffing, with ballots folded inside one another.
When the Australian Ballot was first adopted in Australia (hence its name), ballot qualification required two signatures, that of the nominator and the second.
In the US, political parties sought to maintain their power, and managed to get their ballots printed by the state. That is why in many cases, they were printed in columns or rows. In Texas, you voted by crossing out a name on a ballot. If you wanted to vote a straight ticket, you would simply draw a line down a party’s column. If you didn’t want to vote for a particular candidate, you would leave a gap.
There is no need to print out an actual ballot. Simply make a list of candidates you favor, and take that with you to the polls. Or take a list from someone else, and edit it as you wish.
The official ballots were/are connected with the SECRET ballot.
PR and AppV — office blocs/areas on ballots.