The New York Daily News on December 16 ran this editorial in support of the lawsuits to overturn the new, restrictive, definition of a “political party”.
The New York Daily News on December 16 ran this editorial in support of the lawsuits to overturn the new, restrictive, definition of a “political party”.
A “party” is a word(s) by a name for enhancing free speech and democratic creativity so to attract more votes to then name. That way the voter knows more than just the name while first inside the voting booth.
The United Coalition USA has been doing it right since April 1st 1995, while eagerly making improvements and this policy works fine.
Voting going on now;
http://www.1ogle.com
Coming on 1/1/2021!
Blank “party list” ballots on six geo-levels simultaneously!
Updated schedule and links to be announced here on 1/1/2021.
http://www.allpartysystem.com/day-to-day.php
EQUAL nom pets for individual candidates —
overrule ALL the JUNK brain dead SCOTUS ops since Williams v Rhodes 1968 – mere 52 + years ago.
This is a terrible ballot access law, so it should be overturned.
Why does Demo Rep love to eat pets? It’s his obsession, that and purge lists.
You can’t purge unless you first eat.
Will the BAN resident morons/trolls take their MORON/TROLL act to a TV network New Year’s Eve show ???
Perhaps have the NYE ball fall on their moron/troll skulls at midnight ???
—-
Another year coming for REAL reforms —
PR and AppV
TOTSOP
Demo Rep calling for violence again, while eating pets. Richard needs to ban him.
It should be overturned on process grounds. ONLY legislatures can make laws. Not commissions.
Tim, the legislature did pass that new definition of “party”, on April 1, 2020. The change was inside the budget bill, so that bill had to pass, and the legislature couldn’t amend it.
@Tim,
The New York courts did overturn the whole public funding scheme the grounds that that the commission could not create law. They thus avoided ruling on any underlying constitutional issues.
The legislature then enacted the whole scheme into law, including the party thresholds. The pretext for the thresholds was that if there were too many parties, then there would be too many candidates qualifying for matching funds, If there were too many candidates, then the payout could not be as generous.
Small donations may not be worth the effort to solicit them. But if there is enough subsidy, then they are. The match is 12:1. If a campaign is receiving $120 for a $10 donation it will be worth it to go after it. You might have to contact a dozen individuals who are willing to part with $10 that would be better spent on Starbucks, cigarettes, or the lottery. The campaign would be losing money. But with $120, you can pay your solicitors generously. Money is flowing directly from the state coffers into the pockets of the grifters and grafter.
The matching funds scheme was in section ZZZ of the budget bill.
The definition of party needs to be GOP.