While conveying information that is good to know, this article does not state that the vast majority of No Labels ballot qualification efforts will not be voter registration drives, but will be either party petition or candidate petition drives.
The petitioning table in the June 2023 Ballot Access News lists only six states by which a political party can qualify for the ballot by voter registrations: Alaska, California, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine and Massachusetts. In other states, parties can remain on the ballot through voter registration, but they have to get on the ballot through other means.
thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4076986-no-labels-hits-back-against-progressive-group-move-on/
INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES ARE NOMINATED/ELECTED —
NOT PARTIES.
MINDLESS SCOTUS JUNK SINCE 1968 WILLIAMS V RHODES
—-
P-A-T
@AZ,
What is the basis for claim that the federal judiciary should interfere in the conduct of state elections?
Do you actually believe in Separation of Powers and State Sovereignty?
Here is the letter that MoveOn sent to the Secretary of State in Illinois:
https://front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Illinois-Letter-to-Secretary-of-State.pdf
They cite this letter that the SoS of Maine sent to No Labels:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23835400/no-labels-letter-may-11-2023-1.pdf
Bill’s point is important because No Labels would not be pursuing a voter registration drive in most states, including the state that MoveOn sent this letter to.
No Labels Party appears to have ceased their ballot access operations since they finished a petition drive in Kansas around May 1st. No word as to why they shut down or when and if they will restart. There are rumors that they will start Michigan and California this month.
No Labels apparently isn’t communist enough for Move On.
possible url error ???
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4076986-no-labels-hits-back-against-progressive-group-moveon/
No Labels hits back against progressive group in letter to secretaries of states
—-
both commies and fascists trying to kill ballot access for all 3rd parties and indees ??? duh.
I actually think it would be better the other way around, access for parties not candidates.
JR-
14-1 amdt – esp ep Cl.
28 USC Secs 1331 and 1343 via 14-5 amdt
see now olde Baker v Carr 1962
—
ongoing failure to MAX enforce 14-2 amdt
https://www.nolabels.org/
WEBSITE — MORE EX-DONKEYS/. ELEPHANTS/. OTHERS. ???
@AZ,
Why don’t you sue Biden, Roberts, Schumer, and McCarthy?
JR –
HOW MANY JR CASES SUING TX ELECTION MONSTERS ???
BALLOT ACCESS
GERRYMANDERS
@AZ: how do you think the incumbent replacement list electoral system should work? Would it be better for voters to vote for 2 candidates and the winner is the incumbent and the runner up is the replacement? I would support this!
AZ doesn’t actually do anything anymore except type self contradictory nonsense on this comment forum. He has it confused with reality, or perhaps thinks it’s more important. In his addled zombie “mind” the most important people in the world gather here and take it all seriously. They also understand his comintern style jargon and shorthand and print out his wisdom to tape up next to their 20th century desktop computer setups.
DG-
LEGIS BODY ONLY REPLACEMENT LISTS –
PRE-ELECTION CANDIDATE RANK ORDER LISTS OF ALL OTHER CANDIDATES IN ALL DISTRICTS.
MADE PUBLIC THE DAY AFTER CANDIDATE FILING DEADLINE.
POSSIBLE INCUMBENT REVISED LISTS DURING TERM. >>> NOOO MOOO SPECIAL ELECTIONS FOR LEGIS BODIES.
AZ with yet another retarded idea.
@DG,
AZ is aware of problems with STV in small districts. So he would permit transfers outside of district. But this would be too complex for an ordinary voter who could not be expected to rank 100s or 1000s of candidates. So instead each candidate would rank all the other candidates. A voter would in effect adopt the rankings of the candidate they would vote for.
How is that any better? What if I have no idea about a bunch of them, or think they’re all equally bad? Thinking they are all equally bad should be a motive to run against them, not preclude it.
@Wyatt,
Better than what?
When you say you have no idea about a bunch of them, is that Wyatt, the voter, or Wyatt, the candidate?
The idea of AZ is that a typical voter would not be willing to rank all the candidates, or do so in a meaningful way. So let’s say that you want Joe Don to represent you in the Legislature. Joe Don does not get enough votes. His votes would be transferred based on his preferences. You trusted Joe Don, so it is reasonable that he would exercise good judgment on other candidates.
I don’t understand what you mean by preclude in your comment?
As the would be candidate I may have no knowledge or opinions of rank order of other candidates. I may not know which if any of their promises are honest, or which they could actually keep if they even honestly mean it. They all have good and bad points and it may be hard to tell which would be worse. I’d be precluded from running unless I could rank them. I understand the AZ proposal, it’s just garbage. It’s not better than voters ranking candidates. Can I rank all of them zero??
@Wyatt,
Let’s say your Legislature had 100 members. You were seeking to be elected, but you have no opinions about the other members?
I don’t know whether AZ would permit equal rankings or not.
Are you familiar with the use of STV in multi-member districts?
My opinion might be that they are all equally deserving of tearing, feathering, and being catapulted over a wall into Mexico. Although, I thought AZ assigned all would be candidates the task of ranking every candidate running against them in their own race, not the even less enviable task of ranking all members of or candidates for the body in all districts. Applying that to congress would currently yield ranking 435 representatives and perhaps also an unknown number of challengers. In New Hampshire, 400 districts, iirc (or members of body, since some run in multiple member districts).
Pity the poor fool contemplating a run for office if they have to rank all their opponents, or worse yet all their would be prospective colleagues, as a precondition of running for office.
Wyatt makes sense here.