On October 14, Arkansas filed this brief in Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Thurston, e.d., 4:19cv-214. The brief says that no U.S. Supreme Court decision, and no U.S. Court of Appeals decision, has ever struck down a petition requirement that was 5% or less. This is almost laughably inaccurate. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a petition requirement of approximately 42,000 signatures to run for Mayor of Chicago in 1979 in Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party. The U.S. Supreme Court also struck down a requirement of 50,000 signatures to run for Cook County Commission in 1992, in Norman v Reed.
The Eighth Circuit struck down North Dakota’s party petition of 15,000 signatures in 1980 in McLain v Meier. At the time, 15,000 was 3.3% of the numbr of eligible signers.
The Eleventh Circuit struck down Georgia’s 1% petition for president in 2016 in Green Party of Georgia v Kemp.
The Sixth Circuit struck down Michigan’s 30,000-signature requirement in 2021 in Graveline v Benson. That number was less than 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.
The state’s brief also says that the First Circuit upheld New Hampshire’s 3% petition in 2006 in Libertarian Party of N.H. v Gardner. Actually that case challenged the 3,000-signature requirement for the nominees of unqualified parties, and 3,000 was less than one-half of 1% of the last vote cast. New Hampshire has two methods for the nominees of unqualified parties to get on the ballot with the party label. There is a 3% full party petition but that was not the subject of that lawsuit.
The state’s brief also asserts that the 90-day limit on completing the petition is to prevent fraud, but the brief does not explain the connection between the short petitioning period and fraud. The state says that the fact that no one has ever complied with the Arkansas 3% petition means nothing because there is no evidence that anyone had tried and failed to collect the 3% petition. But from the past record of past lawsuits against past Arkansas 3% petitions, won by both the Reform Party in 1996 and the Green Party in 2006, it is obvious that parties in the past have tried and failed to complete a 3% petition.
ANY election case law books in AR land ???
Perhaps Clintons will buy some and ship them to AR land — for any AR regime so-called lawyers who can read ???
Any $$$ sanctions of the govt HACK lawyers in the case ???
Thanks to Richard Winger, and thru his tireless efforts, we are constantly learning how much states and election authorities are not above outright lines in their defense of high ballot access requirements.
Putting a 90 day limit on petition signatures gathering does NOTHING to eliminate fraud.
What reduces *fraud* ???
— death penalty ???
— live/death on TV news ???
From Chair of California LP Regarding One-party Verses Three-party System for Prez/VP
http://Www.1libertarian.com/BoDs.html
(After she said she is already working with Chair of California Green Party)
Click the search, box or “like” = one-party voting system for Prez and VP
LNC = one-party voting system
Me: “No way to one-party dictatorships”
Hagenbach-Bischoff = three-party voting system
I told the Chair of California Libertarian Party when she left my name off the ballot in 2020, she later censored six of twelve Prez candidates from debate by relegating the three only California Presidential candidates to the floor (I couldn’t figure THAT out), told her that Google derived from my name and sent search traffic to Roberts Rules in October 1997, I was one witness who saw the announcement in my conversation in Usenet started in 1092, both of whom also use one-party voting systems (Google and Robert’s) …. she doesn’t care (see below).
My system is “click the 1” and anything less isn’t good enough.
LNC and Google = one-party voting system (system racism)
Thanks for the quote Mimi Robson, I will spread the word about how you only want the one-party voting systems, that you blocked the information because you already knew that you only care about one-party voting systems that you use, that which cemented yours and others into leadership roles, that which along with censorship, communist-style elections, double standards and gerrymandering (Los Angeles County LP Regions 62,63,64,65), brings systemic racism, that you wanted to make sure the LNC delegates never heard about how my name (on every phone in the world = good name recognition), that my use of the correct algorithm Droop Quota (Google algorithm = systemic racism) and that you and Google like the AppV one-party voting systems just fine.
Everyone spread the word. This is what you’re getting again in California Libertarian Party in 2021 to 2023 from CA LP;
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 10:00 AM Mimi Robson wrote:
James, I have no interest in the green party bylaws and don’t have them. I would suggest you looking on the internet to find them yourself. I know of no actual bylaws amendments that you submitted to the bylaws committee, therefore nothing of yours in in the report at this time.
PLEASE understand that I have no interest in your history or feelings that your math is the only real math. I have no interest in your interests. I have no interests in your multi-party voting system to be used within the LP. Therefore I have no intention of helping you with your endeavors. I really don’t know how to make that any clearer. I won’t be responding to the remainder of your messages from last night, nor any emails that come from now on.
From: james ogle [mailto:jamesoogle@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 7:29 AM
To: Mimi Robson
Subject: Try to get Green Bylaws for PPR
…please try to get a copy of their bylaw items that specifically use proportional representation to me so I can make the comparisons between my bylaw items I submitted to LP Bylaw Committe and theirs.
Year after year we submit our bylaw items to end one-party voting systems within the LNC but the party bosses don’t know and don’t care about abandoning all one-party voting systems (systemic racism).
America is a melting pot. The one-party and two-party voting systems are unacceptable. No way. Never. This is a fight to the death.