On June 30, the New York State Board of Elections filed its response in Libertarian Party of New York v State Board of Elections, 22-893.
Here it is. This is the case that challenges the ballot access changes made in 2020. The changes were: (1) tripling the statewide independent petition from 15,000 signatures to 45,000 signatures, without expanding the six-week petitioning period; (2) making the distribution requirement much more severe; (3) changing the definition of a qualified party from one that polled 50,000 votes for Governor, to one that polled 2% of the vote for the top of the ticket office every two years.
The brief has nothing to say about the fact that when New York in 2020 first required a party to poll a certain share of the vote for president, New York became one of only five states to force qualified parties to perform in the presidential race.
The brief implies that the 2020 changes were to “update” a “century-old” requirement. It says that the 15,000 signature requirement had been passed in 1922. That is factually wrong. The 1922 legislature did not change the number of signatures. The petition had been set at 12,000 in 1918, and then it was raised in 1971 to 20,000, and then in 1992 lowered to 15,000. The text of the brief says the 15,000 signature requirement was set “more than a century ago”, but footnote two admits that the 15,000 was set in 1992. But only a careful reader would catch the contradiction.
The brief says that the old petition requirement placed “no meaningful burden” on petitioning groups. Actually, the old law prevented the presidential candidate who placed third in the nation from being on the New York ballot in 1936, 1956, 1972, 1976, and 2004.
The brief says that under the old New York law, the state faced the problem of “ballot clutter” and “voter confusion”, but the brief does not single out any year in which the ballot was too crowded. Instead, it says repeatedly that between 1996 and 2020, there were fourteen different unqualified parties that used the statewide petition, but that period includes 13 different election years.
The brief says the New York definition of a qualified party is “in the middle of the pack,” and it is true that the median vote test of the 50 states is 2%, and New York’s vote test is 2%. But, that ignores the fact that it is far more difficult for a minor party to poll 2% for president than for other statewide offices. The only minor parties that have polled as much as 2% of the national presidential vote in the last 100 years are the Progressive Party of 1924, the Socialist Party of 1932, the States Rights and Progressive Parties of 1948, the American Party of 1968, the Reform Party in 1996, the Green Party in 2000, and the Libertarian Party in 2016.
The brief says New York had to increase the requirements to avoid wasting money on minor party candidates in the new public funding program, without mentioning that the Second Circuit had already ruled in a Connecticut case that states don’t need to give money equally in public funding programs.
As to the short petitioning window, the brief says the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to approve of a 25-day petitioning window in California in Storer v Brown. Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the California independent petitioning period; it remanded the case for more facts. More important, California has always allowed an infinite amount of time for its procedure for new parties to get on the ballot. For example, the California Libertarian Party took seven years to complete its registration drive for party status, 1972-1979.
The brief does not acknowledge that New York is one of only eleven states with no procedure for a group to become a qualified party in advance of any particular election.
The Libertarian and Green Parties do have an opportunity to file a reply brief.
INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES ARE NOMINATED/ELECTED —
NOT PARTIES.
MINDLESS SCOTUS JUNK SINCE 1968 WILLIAMS V RHODES
—-
P-A-T
Electing individual candidates is mindless junk. Ideas over “hot or not” politicians. Junk since any given date contradicts AZ “dark ages” theme. There’s no rot or dark ages if the sky is both falling and always has been. At that point it’s just the fallen nature of man. Maybe that’s why Thomas says he’s the ALPHA AND THE OMEGA (or AZ in the Roman alphabet). Is he in fact claiming to be the Second Coming???
“The brief says New York had to increase the requirements to avoid wasting money on minor party candidates in the new public funding program”
This is the real intent: to fix the public election finance system in such a way that only Democrats can ever qualify for public money.
The States Rights Party in 1948 and the American Party in 1968 were the only good ones mentioned on that list.
Reform Party in 1996 somewhat, but they were better in 2000.
Libertarians were good in some years like 1988 and 2008. Definitely not in 2016.
NON-TROLL MORONS MAY DETECT AZ ON THE LEFT OF A QWERTY KEYBOARD ???
WAS QWERTY A LOVER OF RUSSIAN MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS ???
—
WHICH IS A MORE DANGEROUS KILLER MONARCH FOR LP FOLKS IN 2024 –
KING JOE OR KING DONALD ???
What are you babbling about this time, communist?
Abolish all ballot access laws and let the voter decide who is “qualified” with an write-in only verifiable ballot with an encrypted receipt. The duopoly’s ballot access censorship and candidate taxation laws are characteristic of fascism.
Why have a ballot when standing counts are so much better?
@DFR,
How do you know that your that your hand-written ballot was counted correctly?
Are you familiar with the trial system used in New England, which required a majority.
Again..
Why standing counts are better.
GOOD LUCK WITH ANY NEW AGE BAAAAADE HANDWRITING ON BALLOTS.
THUS PERHAPS BALLOTS WITH MINI-CAND PICS AND/OR SYMBOLS- MATH, PLANTS/ANIMALS, ETC.
— AS IN REGIMES HAVING A HIGH PCT OF NON-READERS.
VOTE FOR ME – VOTE THE PIE OR PI OR CREAM PIE IN FACE.
Max has the right idea…standing counts.
FOLKS WHO CAN NOT STAND — OUT OF LUCK IN VOTING ???
ESP MILITARY FOLKS INJURED FIGHTING NEW AGE BARBARIANS. ???
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
In Congress, July 4, 1776
[election sentence]
****
He [Brit King George III] has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
****
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
—–
13 original NATION-STATES in the super-emergency federal USA regime – 2nd Continental Congress
Since 1776 and NOW-
unequal ballot access laws
ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders
party hack execs/judics
multi-SOP violations
— producing the political/social/economic rot since 1776.
—-
P-A-T
Not everyone needs to vote. People who vote should be capable of serving in law enforcement, among other things.
Except it’s not rot, since before and after that it’s a dark age. Actually, the sky is falling and has always been falling in crAZyland. When did the dark age give way to the new age? Was there another age in between? Which is better? Which is worse? Sometimes he says nothing new in over 6k years. So then how do we get either rot or dark age? Like I said…crAZy.
AGAIN –
WHAT IS THE EXACT DEFINITION OF ELECTOR/VOTER IN THE MAXZIM REFORM REGIME ???
EXACTLY WHAT ARE THE LEGIS/EXEC/JUDIC POWERS OF THE GREAT PRECINCT BOSS/LEADER IN EACH PRECINCT ???
First question answered more than once previously, and may be subject to regional variations. There’s no boss or leader, so the question makes no sense. A party captain merely organizes speeches or presentations at an election for his party. His party could appoint him to replace peacekeepers during the year until the next election, or someone else, or they may do it as a whole, some prechosen order, etc. Your biggest mistake is thinking government would continue to be an important part of people’s lives. It would not.
EXACT TEXT OF THE MAXZIM G-O-A-T REGIME –
NOT JUNK EVASIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS.
I don’t understand what you mean by exact text of regime. I’ve described my proposals more than enough times, and made it clear local variation is important. Also, I’ve made it clear I’m not here to dance to your demands. If anyone else has questions, they are free to ask them. I have no junk evasions or qualifications. That would be you.
I agree with Max proposals, but they’re at best a long way off. It’s silly to demand exact “text” for what are at best directional suggestions or ideas for discussion. AZ proposals seem to me to be going in the wrong direction. You can’t have science without trial and error, which AZ admits hasn’t happened. AZ proposals are no more “political science” than Max proposals.
DOES AZ HAVE FULL TEXT OF ALL HIS PROPOSALS POSTED IN ONE PLACE SOMEWHERE? IF YES, WHERE?
@Max,
Your ideas do not seem too dissimilar to town meetings. There would be an annual town meeting to approve the budget. There would be election of selectmen and possibly other officers.
This is more egalitarian than your proposal.
AZ asks a good question. How would the elite be chosen in your program?
I’ve noted the similarities to town meetings before. What you suggest is an improvement over the present system.
However, ideally I’d like the meeting to only be annual, and only elect peacekeepers. Peacekeepers would only deal with the most serious crimes and most intractable disputes. Most more minor matters would be handled less formally – by the family patriarch, church counseling, business council, neighborhood council, arbitration firm, insurance company, etc. These wouldn’t have the force of law, but would have the force of law backing them up. If peacekeepers have to be employed, punishment would be swift, sure, and severe.
Because of this and a variety of other factors built into my proposals, I expect crime or disputes rising to the level of requiring peacekeepers to be extremely rare. All other matters can be better handled outside of government, other than national military defense. If the only function of national government is military defense, I don’t see a need for national elections. The military would function much like at present, except top ranks could choose the commander in chief.
Given that there would be little use for peacekeepers, and no other local government, they wouldn’t require much of a budget. As I’ve considered this over the course of conversations here, I’ve come to a realization that peacekeepers could probably serve on a “call as needed” basis while maintaining their other business or employment. This would make the poll tax, which I think is the best way to pay for peacekeepers if a tax is needed, quite low. The military can collect a head tax.
I’ll go over some criteria for elite in the next comment. I’ve gone over it several times before, but since someone besides AZ asked, we can go over it again.
As noted, there could be local variation. Qualifications of voters:
Should have property in the precinct or voting area, maintained in the family for a certain number of generations – perhaps five. Male patriarchal heads of households.
These men would grow up with physical training that would prepare them for military and law enforcement duties, including practical experience. They would have military service before voting. They would have to be married with at least two biological children, including at least one male heir, and never divorced or remarried. They would need to be of the dominant ethnic, racial, and religious group of the area, and would also receive religious training throughout childhood.
Those who vote should be able to serve as peacekeepers, so they should also be mentally, intellectually, and morally prepared to carry out the duties of a judge, and should be trained for that throughout childhood and adolescence. They can’t be too squeamish to carry out the death penalty if and when needed.
They should be gainfully employed or independently wealthy. I expect many of them would be business owners. They should have adequate stores of weapons and ammunition in good condition and demonstrate continued proficiency in their use.
I’ve listed a number of other similar criteria before, and I see no reason to keep an exact list, given that there could be local variation, partial or incremental implementation, etc. These are just ideals. Directional or incremental moves in these directions are welcome.
Ideally, I’m shooting for an electorate of 100 or so and a population of 100k or so. These can be within an order of magnitude plus or minus. The electorate should be small enough to know each other well, and for their families to know each other well. Suppose maybe 10 of 100 could be selected as peacekeepers each year.
Given that most things would be handled outside of formal government, I expect most people would never encounter a peacekeeper in that role, although they would be well known in their many other roles.
I expect commerce to be much more locally focused under such a system, along with other aspects of society. Thus, I expect people to rarely ever move around, particularly outside one of these precincts or voting areas, much less national defense zones. Population wouldn’t be likely to increase or decrease precipitously.
It’s possible a full blown implementation never occurs, and at any rate it won’t occur soon. Thus, what I’m really aiming for is very scaled down moves in these directions in the practical term, with the proposals as a sort of north star to guide the evolution of government and social norms directionally. I think rapid change is inherently bad, so anything of this magnitude should at a minimum take several generations to work towards, with plenty of time to consider if the directional changes are improving things overall.
Local variation is also important, to see what works best. It’s also likely that some things will work better in certain places, given cultural variables. I’m proposing a very rough directional guide, so it’s fairly absurd to demand exact this and exact that, because that’s simply not in the nature of this exercise. Contra AZ, I’m not proposing any tyranny or utopia, and I’m absolutely not proposing a top down structure where every local area has to do everything exactly the same.
I’m basically taking the goals of your founding patriarchs, looking at where things have diverged producing very different results since then, and overcorrecting so that the core original goals can be achieved and maintained sustainably. This is also a proposal to maintain human cultural, regional, and genetic biodiversity, and to prevent the rise of dangerous rapid currents such as communism, fascism, socialism, etc. That is, hardening against overly rapid change of any sort.
Sorry, exceeded originally intended scope again. It’s both too much and not enough, because my proposals interrelate, so the temptation is always there to drag in additional elements.