The California Supreme Court has said it will hear oral argument in Patterson v Padilla, S257302, no later than the week of November 4-8, 2019. Conceivably it could be earlier. This is the case over whether the California Constitution permits the state to enforce its law that presidential primary candidates must reveal their tax returns. Patterson, the first-named plaintiff, is the state chair of the California Republican Party.
Although a U.S. District Court has enjoined that law on federal constitutional grounds, the state is appealing that to the Ninth Circuit. Therefore it is still sensible that the State Supreme Court will hear the state constitutional case. The state constitution says that all “recognized” presidential candidates (who are seeking the nomination of a qualified party) must appear on a presidential primary ballot.
*recognized* = void for vagueness
Will ALL FEC Prez candidates be *recognized* ???
https://www.fec.gov/data/raising-bythenumbers/
mere 921 candidates at moment.
HOW EVIL ROTTED MORON STUPID are the gerrymander hacks in writing THEIR evil rotted constitutions and *laws* ???
A few federal courts ruled that similar presidential primary laws in other states are too vague, but most challenges to such laws have failed.
How about *known* / *seen* / *visable* / etc. instead of *recognized* ???
VOID for vagueness — merely a person who may start WW III and END all human life on Mother Earth.
The SCOTUS MORONS have really done their EVIL MORON number [??? 666 ???} about ballot access laws since 1968.
@DR,
How many of those 921 candidates are persons?
Who would have standing to challenge the California Constitution?
JR — look at the FEC list — about 50 with $$$ cash raised. Many $ zero – alleged *persons*.
Obvious *standing* – each of the 921 who is NOT *recognized* by the CA SOS HACK.
How about TOTAL ballot access C-H-A-O-S in 2020 ???
– primaries [Prez and non-Prez] – runoff primaries — general elections — runoff general elections.
ALL due to SCOTUS brain dead zombie HACKS
— FITS IN WITH THE CURRENT INSANITY IN DEVIL CITY about all sorts of stuff — UN-declared wars, spending, govt debts, investigate everybody 24/7/365, etc.
@DR,
If one does not actually sue, do they have standing?
Civil Procedure 000001 – for hair-splitters
Can not test for *standing* unless one files a Plaintiff’s Complaint in a court.
—
How many 2020 election law Complaints in the courts at the moment ??? —
known mainly by the BAN super-database.
Average time in courts getting longer and longer – due to SCOTUS HACKS ???
@DR,
The California SOS has not released its list of recognized candidates.
Again, if its too burdensome to require a candidate to submit tax returns, then it probably should be too burdensome to require the candidate to collection thousands of petition signatures. I object to the a standard that is not consistent.
How do CA statewide candidates magically get on the CA top 2 primary ballots ???
— in all other States – esp for USA Senators and State Guvs ???
CA has THE largest petition biz ever — offices and issues ???
UNITED STATES v. DAVIS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18–431. Argued April 17, 2019—Decided June 24, 2019
Respondents Maurice Davis and Andre Glover were charged with multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. They were also charged under 18 U. S. C. §924(c), which authorizes heightened criminal penalties for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in connection with any federal “crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.” §924(c)(1)(A). “Crime of violence” is defined in two subparts: the elements clause, §924(c)(3)(A), and the residual clause, §924(c)(3)(B). The residual clause in turn defines a “crime of violence” as a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” Ibid. A jury convicted the men on most of the underlying charges and on two separate §924(c) charges for brandishing a firearm in connection with their crimes. The Fifth Circuit initially rejected their argument that §924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, but on remand in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U. S. ___, the court reversed course and held §924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutional. It then held that Mr. Davis’s and Mr. Glover’s convictions on the §924(c) count charging robbery as the predicate crime of violence could be sustained under the elements clause, but that the other count—which charged conspiracy as a predicate crime of violence—could not be upheld because it depended on the residual clause. Held: Section 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.
Pp. 4–25.
(a) In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers.
— See *** void vagueness *** on Google – often in 1 Amdt ops.
Disputed FACTS in trial cases — NOT junk opinions about stuff.
*recognized* — junk adjective — like good/bad movies, artwork, fiction books, etc.
Demo Rep on August 6, 2019 at 7:47 pm said:
https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/constitution-annotated
Constitution Annotated 2017 edition 2018 Supp.
——– Index
Vagueness in statutes:
Due process………….. 2030–35
First Amendment………. 1172–73, 1208–09, 1261, 1292–94, 1301, 1348, 1359, 1362
—-
ALL election stuff must be YES or NO — by definition
Elector – YES/NO
qualified candidate YES/NO
names on ballots YES/NO
legal vote YES/NO
etc etc etc.
—
ZERO subjective style points
David Bauler, the difference between tax returns and ballot access petitions is that the election administrators need some ballot access barriers in order to administer the election. California had 135 candidates for Governor on the 2003 special gubernatorial election.
But tax returns have nothing to do with the needs of election administration.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-431_7758.pdf
US V DAVIS ABOVE June 24, 2019
WHAT SAYETH JUSTICES JR AND RW ??? — OTHER THAN US V D WAS NOT AN ELECTION CASE.
Beating the dead horse a bit more –
U.S. v Davis, 588 US _ (2019)
Slip op p 4
II
Our doctrine prohibiting the enforcement of vague laws rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers. See Dimaya, 584 U. S., at ___–___ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 4–5); id., at ___–___
Slip op p 5
(GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 2–9). Vague laws contravene the “first essential of due process of law” that statutes must give people “of common intelligence” fair notice of what the law demands of them. Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926); see Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 638 (1914). Vague laws also undermine the Constitution’s separation of powers and the democratic self-governance it aims to protect. Only the people’s elected representatives in the legislature are authorized to “make an act a crime.” United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812). Vague statutes threaten to hand responsibility for defining crimes to relatively unaccountable police, prosecutors, and judges, eroding the people’s ability to oversee the creation of the laws they are expected to abide. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357–358, and n. 7 (1983); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 89–91 (1921); United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 221 (1876).
—
*RECOGNIZED* = UNCON- VOID FOR VAGUENESS
ALERT all CA Prez primary candidates NOW — since govt hacks [esp State HACKS] pay ZERO attention to court ops — UNTIL a USA Marshal shows up with an arrest warrant and a USA Grand Jury Indictment — or even a USA Dist Ct injunction and/or a $$$ Damages order.
@DR,
It was a 5-4 decision. Is the US Constitution void?
5 is more than 4 — at least majority rule in SCOTUS
How much of the USA Const is *vague* — keeping the SCOTUS hacks nonstop busy ???