The Seventh Circuit will hear Gill v Scholz on December 5, Monday. This is the case that challenges the 5% petition for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, for U.S. House. It is a very old case; it had been filed in 2016.
The state argues that the case is moot because since 2016, the districts have new boundaries.
Why would it be moot exactly? The law is the same, isn’t it?
yes, the law is the same. The state seems to be stretching.
I don’t understand what boundaries have to do with ballot access?
It just happens that the district the plaintiff wanted to run in, in 2016, is rural with few cities. The plaintiff argued that the 5% petition was just unconstitutional in general, it was unconstitutional as applied to him because when districts have no dense population centers, it is more difficult to collect a lot of signatures in the 90-day period. So now the state says, because of new district boundaries, it happens he lives in a denser district.
ONE more UNEQUAL ballot access case.
lawyers/judges brain dead stupid about 1954 Brown v Bd of Ed.
— separate is NOT equal.
https://lostnotstolen.org
Trump junk cases in the 2020 marginal EC States
—-
NOOO mention of the fatal ROT of the 3 minority rule gerrymander systems in the USA regime and separate minority rule gerrymander systems in all 50 states.
Thomas Jones once again posting FAKE NEWS! Trump indeed won the election if you only count legitimate votes.
Thank you Mr. Winger for explaining it. Now I understand.
so-called ***justice*** delayed = justice DENIED for 2022-2016 = 6 years.
worse than par for the evil course in election LAW cases.
Of course Trump won if you only count legitimate votes. No vote cast against Trump could ever be legitimate. If your brain tells you otherwise it’s only because you have been brainwashed since birth. In your heart you know I’m right. And right wing, which is the same thing as being right, naturally.