On May 20, the Arizona Secretary of State filed his brief in No Labels Party v Fontes, 24-563. The issue is whether a qualified party in Arizona has a freedom of association right to block anyone from filing in its primary for offices for which the party doesn’t want any candidates. The U.S. District Court had ruled in favor of No Labels Party.
The Ninth Circuit decision in this case, when it comes, will not be in time to affect the 2024 election. But No Labels will also be on the Arizona ballot in 2026, so it might have an impact that year.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-considers-biggest-fascist-possible-205203984.html
TRUMP – POSSIBLE USA AG – AG PAXTON OF TX
FOLKS READY FOR CIVIL WAR II- NONSTOP NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREZ EXEC ORDERS / ETC. ???
IE A-L-L THE FATAL SOP VIOLATIONS IN THE LATE DARK AGE 1787 USA CONST —
MANY COPIED FROM BRIT MONARCH/OLIGARCH REGIME.
The PDF insert isn’t rendering properly. Can we get a link?
I am sorry my usual method of linking isn’t working.
Can you explain how you knew that the party will be on the ballot in 2026 if they only wanted to have a presidential candidate?
https://www.nolabels.org/no-labels-arizona-lawsuit
NLP COMPLAINT LINK
If they have no candidates in 2026, they won’t be on the ballot.
In Arizona, when a party gets on the ballot by petition, it gets the next two elections.
What’s the sound of zero candidates running?
I expect the Ninth Circuit to reverse the decision of the U.S. District Court. I predict there will be No Labels candidates on the Arizona 2026 ballot.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/24-563
DOCKET IN 9TH CIRC
INDIVIDUALS GET NOMINATED/ELECTED — NOT *PARTIES*
BRAIN DEAD COURTS SINCE 1888-1890 OFFICIAL PRIMARIES
They don’t want to associate with voters registered with the party? What was the representation made to voters who signed the party qualification petition?
@Richard Winger
Thank you for taking the time and effort to figure out the PDF!
Jim Riley: there were probably lots of different pitches used by petitioners, with varying degrees of honesty or accuracy. I’d guess very few people signed under the impression that they were creating a new party, much less interested in joining one. I further guess very few of the people who registered to vote with them even realized they were not registering nonpartisan, much less had any interest in voting in their primary.
How many circulators will sign a sworn affidavit that the undersigned persons did not know the purpose of the petition that they circulated?
“I, the undersigned, a qualified elector in the county of Winslow, state of Arizona, hereby petition that a new political party become eligible for recognition, and be represented by an official party ballot at the next ensuing regular primary election, to be held on the 30th of July, 2024 and accorded a column on the official ballot at the succeeding general election to be held on the 5th of November. 2024. A new political party is entitled to representation as a political party on the official ballot through the next two regularly scheduled general elections for federal office immediately following recognition of the political party. Said party shall be known as No Labels Party. I further declare that if I choose to use a post office box address on this petition, my residence address has not changed since I last reported it to the county recorder for purposes of updating my voter registration file.”
For legal purposes it must be assumed that the signers desired that No Labels be recognized and appear on the primary ballot.
They won’t sign it. I’m just telling you the reality of the petition business.
@FP,
Were sufficient signatures presented to the Arizona Secretary of State stating the desire of the signatories that No Labels be recognized as a political party and that would have a primary?
That is the only issue for the courts to decide.
Yeah but we paid for it or that some circulators were tricksters does not matter.
I disagree. You could poll a sampling of the signers what they thought they signed, for example.
@FP,
Who would commission this poll?
No Label (not a party) Inc.: You remember that petition we filed?
Secretary of State: Yeah, it had enough valid signatures so we recognized the party and let voters register with it.
No Label NAPI: Well some of those signers thought they were in a drawing for a free pony, or thought it said No Lapels. And you as the chief election officer of the State of Arizona should know that most voters are morons. How did you get elected in the first place?
Secretary of State: OK, we’ll run a poll. Know any reliable pollsters?
No Label NAPI: We know just the persons (/smirk)
Facially the petition was valid. There is no reason to investigate the motivations of the signers.
If anyone truly believes that a lot of people signed it because they want it to be on the primary ballot, they can commission the poll. You asked about pitches, I answered. I know how the business works. Believe whatever you want.
@FP,
The Arizona No Labels Petition is facially valid.
The petition said that it was to recognize a new political party and to have a primary this July. The circulators stated that they witnessed each signing and believed the signer was a qualified voter.
The burden to disprove this is on those who apparently want to remove recognition.
You appear to be indifferent, so I don’t expect you to lead the effort or commission a poll.
Yeah, I don’t care. You asked, I answered. No lube can make whatever arguments and present whatever evidence they want and we’ll see what the court decides.