On December 23, the Maine Libertarian Party filed this brief in Baines v Bellows, 1:19cv-509. This is the ballot access case concerning new and minor parties. The Maine laws on de-enrolling party members when a party goes off the ballot, and restricting who can sign primary petitions, had been held unconstitutional on November 17, 2021. Afterwards the judge expected the Libertarian Party and the Secretary of State to come to a joint understanding on how to implement the decision.
But the Secretary of State declined to put the party back on the ballot, so now judge Lance Walker will decide.
It is normal for courts to put parties on the ballot, after the party has won a constitutional ballot access lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court put the American Independent Party on the Ohio ballot in 1968, and put the National Democratic Party on the ballot in several Alabama counties the same year (the National Democratic Party was an African-American party that was different from the Democratic Party). The U.S. Supreme Court also put the Harold Washington Party on the Cook County, Illinois ballot in 1990, even before declaring the laws that had kept it off the ballot unconstitutional.
Lower courts have taken similar action many times: in Alabama in 1990 (New Alliance), in Alaska in 1982 (Alaskan Independence), in Hawaii in 1974 (Peoples), in Idaho in 1984 (Populist), in Illinois in 1972 (Communist and Socialist Labor), in Kansas in 1982 (Libertarian), in Massachusetts in 1984 (New Alliance), in Michigan in 1984 (Socialist Workers), in Nebraska in 1976 and 1984 (Libertarian), in Nevada in 1986 (Libertarian) and 1992 (Populist and Natural Law), in New Mexico in 1988 (Workers World), in Ohio in 1970 (Socialist Labor), 2008 (Libertarian and Socialist) and 2014 (Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Socialist), in Oklahoma in 1984 (Libertarian), in Tennessee in 2012 and 2014 (Green and Constitution), and in Wyoming in 1984 (Libertarian). There are probably other examples as well. In Maine itself, the Reform Party sued in 1996, but then the state agreed it had qualified for the ballot, so the court didn’t need to make a ruling.
FAILURE to put EXACT remedy into opinions/judgments —
CASES 0002 in law skoools.
Civil cases – Complaint — Injury – Remedy
I hope everyone realizes the Courts are contributory towards helping extinguish third political parties trying to gain access to the ballot because going to Court involves spending money for attorneys that drains a struggling third political party finances. By the time some third political parties are finished with litigation which they shouldn’t have had to do in the first place they are bone dry when it comes for money to finally take on the two major parties in the election arena. It’s called “BLEEDING THIRD POLITICAL PARTIES THEM TO DEATH!”
Many experienced ballot access attorneys work for free, hoping to win, and if they win, under the 1976 Equal Justice Act, the state government must pay their attorneys fees.
When they lose the state bankrupts tbe party with its own attorneys fees, and those experienced ballot access attorneys get … nothing?
when the case loses, the government doesn’t have any right to collect atty fees from the plaintiffs.
LOTS of *experienced* LP LOSING so-called lawyers —
should be sanctions on ALL losers — esp in election law cases —
all math — yes/no type cases.
But, but, they won this case, didn’t they?
What should the sanctions be on demo rep for losing 100% of his cases? Life with no parole with hard labour in the basement, making useless website comments? Or would that be too harsh of a sentence?
Again for all troll morons especially —
—
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/727/603/389972/
Peggy Goldman-Frankie, et al., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Richard Austin, et al., Defendants-appellants, 727 F.2d 603 (6th Cir. 1984)
near end
The defendants’ argument that the lower court and this court are bound by Jones v. Hare, 440 F.2d 685 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 404 U.S. 911, 92 S. Ct. 237, 30 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1971), is not convincing. In Jones, this Court rejected a broad attack on Michigan’s election laws and constitutional provisions including Art. VIII Sec. 3. The Court found the “nominal formation of a so-called ‘political party’ ” a reasonable requirement for gaining access to the ballot. Id., at 686. As the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Storer v. Brown and its progeny make clear, Jones v. Hare has been overruled.
—
Took until 1988 for Mich Legislature to enact an UNEQUAL election law section for independents.
——
RW can report on how many times the Mich LP has had to do ballot access petitions since 1970.
What century will the LP get lawyers with brains to over-rule ALL the junk ballot access cases starting with Willliam v Rhodes in 1968 ???
The Michigan minor parties, especially the Libertarian Party, did a wonderful job of lobbying the Michigan legislature in 2002. The legislature made it far easier for a party to remain on the ballot, with House Bill 5237. The Libertarian Party, the US Taxpayers (Constitution) Party, and the Green Party, and even the Natural Law Party, have never had to do a petition in Michigan since 2002.
@DR,
What is your opinion of Justice Harlan’s dissent in ‘Reynolds’?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DqZ3LXBupS6cxNwKrWDOJ1msgbCf1Jfw/view
CA G maps 2022 report
ZERO mention of G math —
1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 — esp in CA with top 2 primary — more voters NOT voting for any D or R.
Why would the libertarian party, or any other party, waste its money on lawsuits that are not only highly unlikely to win, given that they go against many decades of well established precedents, but which would go directly counter to those parties interests if they somehow did win?
RW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
so much for well established precedents
Look for Justice Stewart’s g math footnote —
possible 25 pct minority rule in one of the Reynolds add on cases.
Failure to do more about RFG in 4-4.
—-
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Every state government has lost at least one constitutional ballot access case filed by a minor party or independent candidate. There were many wins in 2020, and in 2021 the laws of Montana and Maine and Michigan were struck down, and Georgia lost in US District Court but is appealing, so that one is uncertain.
JR –
Elephants had quite enough of all donkey stuff by May-June 1866 [trying to repair Civil WAR I chaos, deaths, destruction].
— esp blacks in donkey/ex-rebel States to have ZERO *political* rights – voting/holding offices
and ZERO/minimal *civil* rights [due to *** Black codes ***].
Major doubts about USA 1866 Civil Rights Act —
being *free* for ex-slaves via 13 Amdt does NOT mean they have ANY political or civil rights
— all sorts of unequal stuff in ALL States, N-E-W-S, re women, foreigners, other groups / classes.
MULTIPLE proposed const amdts put into Joint Comt on Reconstruction since Dec 1865.
TWO main speeches on 14 Amdt – one in HReps {14-1 EP Cl] , one in Senate [14-2] — 14-1 does NOT give power for Congress to define Electors-Voters in States.
14-1 amdt-
1. over-rule infamous 1857 Dred Scott opin. [added in Senate]
2. over-rule *1865-1866* black codes in ex-rebel States
3. safety for Elephants in ex-rebel States
14-2 Amdt — attempt at universal male suffrage – being an elector-voter – constitutional right to vote.
14-5 Amdt enforce above.
Really poor JCR report about 14 Amdt – mostly re-hash attack in Confeds in 1860-1861 and Confed wreckage in 1865-1866 – ONE para at end about 14 Amdt.
Party HACK SCATTER-brains in SCOTUS since 1868 re 14 Amdt.
@DR,
You didn’t really address my question about Justice Harlan’s dissent in Reynolds – unless you are saying that he was right.
I suppose you agree with Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Evenwel?
Mr. WINGER, those victories are a lagging indicator. The new trend is for worse ballot access. I don’t like making this observation/prediction, but I’m making it.
The two biggest parties are both slowly, but with increasing pace, sliding towards totalitarianism and all out war, and third parties and independents will be caught in the ceasefire. I understand that demo rep has been saying that for years, so i’ll give credit where it’s due, but he seems to think that his formulaic comments here will somehow prevent this slide. I don’t believe they, or anything else, will save us. It’s already too late, it’s just not obvious to everyone yet, but the chain of collapse is already in motion and nothing will stop it.
Thank you for your work over the years. I’m sorry that it will end up being swept away by the rising tide of bipartisan totalitarianism and warfare, and that it’s too late to stop it on any front. I didn’t want to come to this conclusion, but I have. The rest of you will all see what’s happening, some sooner than others.
Crossfire. While there may be some ceasefires, they won’t hold. And crossfire is what those not picking a side will be caught in.
Those who will point out to the success of the American revolution in the 18th century, a clear victor after a few short years in the first US civil war in the 19th, or the seeming defeat of fascism and communism in the 20th, are being too optimistic if they think we’ll be as lucky in the 21st.
REALIST —
TOTAL LOOT thy neighbors STATISM since 1929 — 92 years.
Govts borrowing about 25 percent of spending/looting
— nearing 50 TRILLION debt with zillions more of UN-financed debts coming — NEW DARK AGE.
Means ZERO to red commie Donkeys – esp in the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander Congress.
See ROT of olde Roman Republic in 120 BC – 27 BC – A. Caesar tyranny — to 476 AD — about 1,000 years of Dark Age.
ALL NON-TROLL BAN FOLKS SHOULD INFORM THEIR LOCAL MEDIA OF THE ROT —
UNEQUAL BALLOT ACCESS LAWS
MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS
PARTY HACK EXECS/JUDICS
FATAL SOP VIOLATIONS
—
EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS
PR
APPV – NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS
TOTAL SOP
JR asked –
What is your opinion of Justice Harlan’s dissent in ‘Reynolds’?
—-
HARLAN Wrong emphasis on Congress actions/non-actions.
EP CL Difference between the definition of Elector/Voter in a State and the *weight* of the Elector/Voters ***Vote***.
TOTAL failure to bring up RFG in 4-4 in all the 1962-1964 gerrymander cases
– ie — the about 40 sentences in the 1787-1788 Federalist papers.
IE BRAIN DEAD failure to bring up the UNEQUAL MATH VOTES that elected the gerrymander hacks in ALL the Reynolds cases-
• 377 US 533 Reynolds v. M O Sims J Vann S — AL — main opin.
—-
• 377 US 633 Wmca Inc v. P Lomenzo — NY
• 377 US 656 Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. J Tawes — MD
• 377 US 678 Davis v. Mann — VA
• 377 US 695 Roman v. Sincock — DE
• 377 US 713 Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of State of Colorado — CO
—
SCOTUS morons got into 14-2 Amdt census pop fixations — VOTERS PLUS NON-VOTERS (CHILDREN, FOREIGN LEGAL RESIDENTS, ETC).
BRAIN dead failure to detect that a State/Local legislative body exists ONLY because ALL Electors/Voters can not meet in person and vote on legislative body stuff.
NOT 1 vote per gerrymander district in any statewide votes for offices and ballot issues
— the ACTUAL UNEQUAL votes per district are counted.
Another crop of ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander cases very shortly.
MICH gerrymander maps coming this week from Mich G Comm.
Likely cases next week.
—-
Any surviving gerrymander stats from 1860 ??? >>> 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866 / multi-thousands maimed for life – NO eyes, hands, arms, feet, legs.
JR — bit more —
NOOO 28 USC 1331 early on – result NON-enforcement of much of USA Const — such as 14-2 Amdt directly.
NOT corrected until 1980 (1980) amendment of such section.
Omission was subversion of the MINI-set of laws required to enforce USA Const —
pay for USA officers, enforce Art III, Sec. 2, etc.
State courts are NOT USA/FED courts.
“ALL NON-TROLL BAN FOLKS SHOULD INFORM THEIR LOCAL MEDIA OF THE ROT —
UNEQUAL BALLOT ACCESS LAWS
MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS
PARTY HACK EXECS/JUDICS
FATAL SOP VIOLATIONS”
How have your attempts to inform the local media worked out, Demo Rep? Do you get the sense that they care?
By the way, disagreeing with your specific prescriptions to fix the bigger systemic problems doesn’t make someone a troll or a moron. But it doesn’t matter anyway, because it’s too late to fix them, and the media, much like the courts and the average person, don’t care. Few people are even looking at any sort of big picture or have any real interest in looking at it. They are dealing with their own personal tiny piece of it. A lot of people see a bunch of rot, and believe that there’s nothing that can be done to stop it at this point- which has now come to be my position as well. A few people like you think they have the magic cure. But they disagree among each other, and few people, whether those people are wealthy, powerful, influential, or just everyday folks struggling to pay the bills and get through life, care what they think anyway.
The media, for their part, are mostly just competing with each other for readership, viewership, or listenership. If it bleeds, it leads. A few cute puppies and kittens and human interest stories, your local weather and traffic. That sort of thing. They get all sorts of crank letters and calls from all sorts of cranks with their own special fixes for the big picture, but it’s not really something that interests them or their editors or producers. It doesn’t help them win the ratings or circulation wars. To put it succinctly: they don’t care.
Does it work differently in your universe? How has contacting your local media worked out for you? By all means please tell me your tales of media coverage success. Or don’t, because it doesn’t matter. We’re screwed, and we’re going to only get more screwed. Handle it however you want.
“They get all sorts of crank letters and calls from all sorts of cranks with their own special fixes for the big picture”
Like Robert Milnes sending “love letters” to Deborah Knapp?
If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Milnes’ communications to Ms. Knapp were more focused on what he wanted to do to her, or have her do to him. Of course, it’s possible that they also dealt with his views about less personal matters. I don’t know or care whether they did or not.
Also inform the various left/right *think tanks* who CARE much more than *Realist* about the mere survival of the human race against killer/enslaver monarchs/oligarchs.
—-
EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS
PR
APPV – NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS
TOTAL SOP
I wonder if his communication with her continued since she did report on TV surveillance in 2012.
Demo Rep,
It’s not me who doesn’t care. I wouldn’t be here, much less read your comments, much less respond to them, if that was the case.
“Think tanks” are like everyone else – at the end of the day their personal and institutional concerns come foremost. Individually and institutionally, they want to maintain and expand their funding and prestige. Individually, the people who work there are interested in their career advancement.
Unlike the local news, they’re at least to some extent thinking about those big issues. But they have to tailor that thinking to their donors, publishers, readers, listeners, and so on.
How exactly do you contact a “think tank”? You might reach a low level mail room intern or front desk receptionist. You may get lost in a shuffle of junk mail, spam, and voicemails. If you somehow get the attention of someone above that level, you’d better be really persuasive, and quickly, especially if you’re not someone coming to them from a position of wealth, fame, or prestige.
Again, feel free to show me I’m wrong. Have you had much, or in fact any at all, positive reception from your attempts to contact “think tanks”? How much? Did anything come of it? Or, are you waiting for someone else to do it for you? Good luck.
JR —
LUCAS v. COLORADO GEN. ASSEMBLY, 377 U.S. 713, 750 (1964)
Justice Potter Stewart dissenting
[n.] 12 Even with legislative districts of exactly equal voter population,
26% of the electorate (a bare majority of the voters in a bare majority
of the districts) can, as a matter of the kind of theoretical
mathematics embraced by the Court, elect a majority of the legislature
under our simple majority electoral system. Thus, the Court’s
constitutional rule permits minority rule.
Students of the mechanics of voting systems tell us that if all that
matters is that votes count equally, the best vote-counting electoral
system is proportional representation in state-wide elections. See,
e. g., Lakeman and Lambert, supra, n. 10. It is just because electoral
systems are intended to serve functions other than satisfying
mathematical theories, however, that the system of proportional representation
has not been widely adopted. Ibid.
——
[P. 748,] n. 10 [part] Lakeman and Lambert, Voting in Democracies, pp. 19-37, 149-156.
————
1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 Minority rule = direct subversion of 4-4 RFG and 14-1 EP cl.
Failure of scores of brain dead lawyers to note actual gerrymander math VOTE results in the 1964 cases and since the 1964 cases —
UNEQUAL votes for gerrymander district winners.
UNEQUAL total votes in gerrymander districts – esp after more election cycles.