On January 3, two Christian groups filed an amicus curiae in Utah Republican Party v Cox, 18-450. They are the U.S. Pastor Council and the Christian Life Center, a Utah church. They argue in favor of the Utah Republican Party, which is hoping the Court will accept their case. The issue is the extent to which state governments can tell parties how to choose nominees. Here is the amicus.
Parties = Factions of PUBLIC Electors — NOT independent empires.
In West Virginia we have an apparent discrepancy in the code where only parties that polled less than ten percent for governor (but 1% or greater to be qualified as a party) are permitted to nominate candidates by convention (http://code.wvlegislature.gov/3-5-22/). But then the previous section is a lengthy set of rules for how the party is to select its presidential nominating convention and state executive delegates – by a state convention!!!(http://code.wvlegislature.gov/3-5-21/).
@JB,
3-5-21 applies to all parties.
3-5-22 permits nomination by convention but requires the nominations to be filed in accord with 3-5-24.
@DR,
A political group could organize conventions and decide who it was going to support and go out and petition for those candidates.
What the Utah Republican Party wants is to use the police power of the state to prevent dissidents from running.
The fundamental problem is partisan nomination recognized by the state. Eliminate that and you eliminate state subsidies of private groups, state maintenance of records of the political beliefs of its citizens, and state interference in matters of fundamental political beliefs of individuals.
JR —
Parties = Factions of PUBLIC Electors — NOT independent empires —
with ZERO control over other factions.
@Jim Riley, correct. But my point is that parties which polled 10% or greater for governor are prohibited from using 3-5-22 even though they are required to have a convention ANYWAY per 3-5-21. The state tells large parties that they MUST hold a convention for internal delegates, but CANNOT use it to nominate candidates up for public election.
See Eu 1989 case for internal clubby party stuff-
BUT contingent party hack nominations [1 person-1 vote] if candidate vacancy.
Sue for $$$ damages to bankrupt the govt MORONS.
Main problem is with convention *delegates* — NOT chosen by equal numbers of party members.
See national Donkey Convention – delegate selection Rules W-A-R-S since 1968 – stuff like *super* delegate super-HACKS, etc.
—
Abolish the whole evil rotted mess.
NO caucuses, primaries and conventions.
PR and AppV
@JB,
West Virginia presidential elector candidates for the major parties are not chosen by primary like other nominees are. 3-5-21 is intended to ensure that the choice of electors is in the hands of the voters aligned with the party. In 2016, it is conceivable that WV Democrats might not have chosen presidential electors who supported Hillary “we are going to put coal miners out of work, right, Tim (smirk)” Clinton.
Since minor parties don’t nominate by primary, 3-5-21 lets them use the conventions to also choose nominees for other offices.
For those of you who are not understanding what Demo Rep is saying, a political party has three manifestations.
(1) The voters who are affiliated with the part (sometimes referred to as members or rank and file).
(2) The executive bodies chosen by (1).
(3) The members of the legal entity. This may require payment of dues, taking of oaths, etc.
States generally recognize (1) as the group that has provided the modicum of support that entitles the party the right to make nominations. Primary elections are intended to ensure that it is this group making the nominations.
States may also regulate how (2) are chosen, in effect that (1) has a republican form of governance.
I believe that nomination rights for political parties should be eliminated. This would eliminate the need for the state to maintain records of the political beliefs of its citizens, or to condition voting on those beliefs. Elections should be free.
This does not preclude (3) parties existing, recruiting candidates, assisting their ballot qualification, supporting their election. These parties might well encourage voters in (1) to formally become members, or perhaps informally by signing up for enail communication, attending rallies, making campaign contributions, etc.
@DR,
Groups of individual voters may organize to place individual candidates on the ballot. They avoid government regulation how they choose who to support.
@DR,
You mean IV.4.
I don’t see how this applies. I visited the National Archives to look at text of the Constitution and got a popup about the government shutdown. I dismissed it before carefully reading it, but it may have said that the Constitution is no longer in effect.
MOST PARTIES NOW HAVE LEGIS/EXEC/JUDIC PARTS – OFTEN WITH MAJOR VIOLATIONS OF SEPARATION OF POWERS — EVEN WORSE THAN BELOW.
———-
USA CONST – DE FACTO DEAD SINCE 1936
— LAWLESS MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER CONGRESS HACKS
— LAWLESS EXEC HACKS – ESP PREZS [ESP WITH UN-DECLARED FOREIGN WARS]
— LAWLESS SCOTUS HACKS – DUE TO APPOINTMENT BY PARTY HACK PREZS AND MINORITY RULE USA SENATE HACKS.
@Jim Riley – You are incorrect in saying that minor parties do not nominate by primary. §3-5-4. “Nomination of candidates in primary elections” is open to any qualified political party. The Mountain Party (Greens) regularly run a handful of their candidates in the primary. They also use 3-5-22 to hold a nominating convention after the primary thus double-dipping, so to speak.
You otherwise appear to be missing my point which is to stress that the West Va government completely dictates party structure and organization if it polls 10% or greater of the gubernatorial. In my opinion, I don’t think the government should be involved AT ALL in political parties. “Nunyabidness.”
@JB,
3-5-4 is in conflict with 3-5-22. I could only find statutes going back to 2005. If you can find earlier versions, I suspect you will find a distinction in 3-5-4.
The Mountain Party is probably filing vacancies in nomination under 3-5-11(d).
3-5-21 does not dictate party organization. It dictates the conduct of nominating procedure for presidential electors.
See
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/442/191.html
MARCHIORO v. CHANEY (1979)
re: filling candidate vacancies by party hacks — 1 person – 1 vote stuff.
Quite fortunate NOT to have had a major crisis [yet].
Courts- general- more recent law applies.
Should be — earliest law applies — to cause HACKS [ie their staffers] to review ALL earlier laws on any subject.