On September 1, some Illinois Republican Party activists filed a state court lawsuit to remove William Redpath from the ballot. Redpath is the Libertarian nominee for U.S. House, 6th district. His petition was challenged earlier this year, but the administrative body that hears ballot access petitions ruled that Redpath’s petition has enough valid signatures.
The lawsuit alleges that Redpath does not have enough signatures, if people who signed his petition and who had already voted in the March 2020 primary are not counted. There is no Illinois law that says primary voters can’t sign for an independent candidate or the nominee of an unqualified party. But the lawsuit alleges that this requirement is “implicit”. The case is Bixler v Illinois State Board of Elections, 2020MR775, Sangamon County Circuit Court.
Illinois law once did provide that primary voters could not sign for an independent candidate, but that law was repealed in 1975.
Oh they don’t know who they’re messing with, do they?
Get your popcorn ready.
This is a meritless challenge. It should be laughed out of court.
Elections — ALL written laws in USA — NOOO non-written common law stuff.
Counter-sue for $$$ damages.
Better yet – ATTACK the IL minority rule gerrymander regime and bring it down.
—-
PR and Appv
TOTSOP
This lawsuit is hogwash.
These frivolous lawsuits are possible because there are ballot censorship rules which can be misconstrued and abused. Abolish all ballot access laws and restore the right of every voter to decide for himself who deserves to be on the ballot by actually voting for them without duopoly prior censorship.
The Libertarian Party bosses should look in the mirror at how they break their own bylaws, Section 2, Purposes 2, something to the effect win elections for Libertarians.
By using the one-party voting system they are assured to lose.
That’s because not many Americans see the Libertarian Party’s one-party voting system as an example of equal time and equal treatment and so stopping a one-party system is a good thing.
The 539-party System is the only coast-to-coast team where all names have liberty to self-categorize and all are elected with an identical threshold under the Droop Quota.
United Coalition USA
http://Www.pprelectoralcollege.com
Redpath is a jerk. As much as I am all for ballot access, a part of me would be happy if he did get tossed off.
Now, obstructionists are making up the law as they need. The whole nomination petition aparatus has become a tool of the corrupt. Serious consideration should be given to trashing nomination petitions altogether.
Blame the ballot access ROT on the armies of USELESS so-called lawyers and robot party SCOTUS HACKS.
Pass below along to recent law skooool grads NOT in a big lawyer biz [who get instantly brainwashed / paralyzed about conlaw stuff].
—–
Equal Ballot Access Brief, 7 NOV 2019 V.2
The fundamental constitutional principle of SEPARATE-IS-NOT-EQUAL in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954), was unfortunately N-O-T brought up in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) — the first *modern* ballot access case in SCOTUS.
Every State has SEPARATE and UNEQUAL ballot access laws for the INDIVIDUAL candidates for partisan offices —
(1) old or new major parties,
(2) old or new minor parties,
(3) and independents.
[At least 5 classes – Specify for State involved].
Also, the following basic points have not been properly noticed —
(1) there is ONE class of electors in a general election,
(2) there is ONE class of candidates on the general election ballots (i.e. a candidate is on or off the ballots) and
(3) each general election for each office is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior general election — for such office (or any other office) — or any other thing since 4 July 1776 — EXCEPT the number of actual voters at the prior general election in the election area of the office involved — for having EQUAL nominating petitions at the next election (see below).
A-L-L ballot access cases have failed to note such BASIC POINTS including —
Williams,
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971),
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974),
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986),
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) and
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008).
[I.E. suggest/demand that ALL of the cases beginning with Williams be overruled.]
The Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amendment, Sec. 1 requires that all INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME election area pass the SAME (i.e. *EQUAL*) test(s) for ballot access to get on state or local general election ballots.
Obviously an *EQUAL* nominating petition for ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area will show which INDIVIDUAL candidates have a preliminary showing of voter support.
See also Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) (equal regional treatment of electors who sign petitions) and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-636 (1996) (discrimination against homosexuals).
The Moore case was noted in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 107 (2000).
—-
The cases can be seen via—
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
———
NOOOOO such thing as a *political question* —
Each act or omission does or does not violate the LAW.
———-
LP fans —
Yell and scream at top LP folks in DC to hire ONE ballot access lawyer with ANY research brain cells.
2020-1868 = 52 years of MORON ballot access cases.
Civil WAR II since 20 Jan 2017 — Tyrant Trump regime.
—
Equal nom pets
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet
TOTSOP
typo
2020-1968 = 52 years of MORON ballot access cases.
Could a poster summarize what Demo Rep posted? Is it coherent, or merely more trollish gibberish?
WalterZiobro,
Making up law on the spot in an age old tradition for the duopoly. In 2012, Oklahoma argued that Gary Johnson could not be placed on the ballot by the state members of the American Elect party because the national party decided not to nominate anyone. There is no law on the books that states that the national party can veto the decision of the state members in such a way. But the courts allowed the challenge and he was removed from the ballot.
I am curious how the votes were cast on the IL board of elections. Do they publish their opinions? Was it a roll call vote? Or was it straight down party lines?
If I recall correctly, there was only one dissenting vote on the Redpath objection. It was a roll call vote, but I don’t recall who voted against Redpath getting on the ballot. Sure as hell sounded like Cadigan. The rest, including Mr. Linnabary, voted to place Redpath on the ballot.
But these whole proceedings AFTER the ballot was certified, this is a fucking low blow.