On February 12, U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi refused to stay his own opinion in No Labels Party v Fontes, 2:23cv-2172. Now the state of Arizona can ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay. The U.S. District Court had sided with No Labels in his earlier opinion. He had upheld the freedom of association right of No Labels to block anyone from running in the party’s primary for congress or state office.
PUBLIC BALLOTS = PUBLIC CONTROL
PUBLIC NOMINATIONS FOR PUBLIC OFFICES
In today’s New York Times, Ryan Clancy of Brooklyn, identified as the chief strategist for No Labels, has a letter to the editor titled “Giving Voters Choices” in the print edition. In part, Mr. Clancy writes:
“The ongoing effort to disenfranchise groups or candidates challenging the entrenched powers in both parties is rooted in contempt for voters — 64 percent of whom want another choice in 2024 beyond what the major parties seem poised to offer.”
It seems that Mr. Clancy’s No Labels Party is disenfranchising the 26,000 voters in Arizona who are members of the No Labels Party in disallowing them, alone among all Arizona voters, from casting a ballot in the July primary. Maybe No Labels is equally or more guilty of “contempt for voters” and disenfranchising “candidates challenging the entrenched powers” — the entrenched powers in No Labels being Mr. Clancy and the other leaders of this closely-held insular group.
Does the NY Slimes do anything to verify the names and claimed credentials of letter writer’s? It may be a mere coincidence that the alleged chief strategist of the No Lube outfit is named Ryan Clancy, or maybe it’s a joke based on Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan character, or a younger relative of Mr. Clancy’s, perhaps named Ryan in the character’s honor?
Ryan Clancy? Yeah right!