Although the Minnesota House has passed a bill making the definition of a qualified party more severe, the Senate appears to have doubts about that idea. The House version of the omnibus bill, HF 1830, raises the vote test from 5% to 10%. But the Senate version of the omnibus bill, SF 3230, no longer does. Instead it has a new provision saying that in party primaries, no one can get on the ballot unless he or she has some support with the party organzation, or unless he or she submits a primary petition.
Under current law, no one needs a petition to get on a primary ballot. The whole idea of raising the vote test from 5% to 10% was because Democratic legislators believed that the two Marijuana Parties, which had qualified party status in the past (one of them still does) were being invaded by insincere candidates in their primaries, who didn’t care about legalization of marijuana but just wanted to be on the November ballot to attract votes that otherwise would mostly go to Democratic nominees.
The new alternate idea of requiring primary candidates to have some support with the party leaders, or to submit a primary petition, would solve the perceived problem with the marijuana parties. Then there would be less motivation for the legislature to eliminate such parties by raising the vote test for qualified status.
Glad to hear of this change improving the bill for the better.
How candidates get on the primary ballot of a qualified party should be left up to each party. The state should only require that their rules for such be made public, and filed with the state’s election authority.
The question of whether or not a qualified party is running so-called “insincere” candidates is a question to be resolved by that party alone, and not the business of any other party.
Up to party – yes
Candidates – no
Primary – no
Ballot – no
Winning party picks officeholders after winning general election by standing count – yes
Any way it wants to and replaces them as needed – yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_primary
SORRY – PARTY GANGS (WITH THEIR ROTTED MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS) ARE NOT INDEPENDENT EMPIRES.
PUBLIC NOMINATIONS FOR PUBLIC OFFICES BY PUBLIC ELECTORS/VOTERS.
SEE ALSO 1989 EU OP IN SCOTUS — PUBLIC VS PRIVATE CLUBBY STUFF.
You are highly confused. The courts and your constitution would go away under the Max Plan. The entire written law would be much shorter than your constitution. There would be no nominations, only elections of the party which picks the peace officers for the next year at the precinct level. The only other government would be the military, which would pick its own commander in chief.
Of course only Whites should vote. That should go without saying. There are many other criteria as well, which we have discussed before.
The Southern limitations on voting were a good start, but my proposal would be much more stringent.
See this discussion as well:
https://ballot-access.org/2023/04/26/texas-senate-passes-bill-to-require-all-parties-except-new-parties-to-nominate-by-primary/#comments
Even if the only reform was to limit the voter eligibility like in the southern states during the early 19th century it would already make your country much better. But I want to go a lot further than that.