U.S. District Court Hears Cornel West North Carolina Ballot Access Case

On July 30, U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle heard the Cornel West ballot access case in North Carolina.  Ortiz v North Carolina State Board of Elections, e.d., 5:24cv-420.  The West petition for the Justice for All Party has enough valid signatures, according to the county boards.  But the State Board still wouldn’t put his party on the ballot, because they said they believed some petitioners misrepresented the contents of the petition.

The judge said he would rule quickly.  He allowed Cornel West to intervene in the case.  The case had been filed by some voters who want to vote for West.


Comments

U.S. District Court Hears Cornel West North Carolina Ballot Access Case — 16 Comments

  1. In Virginia, people petitioning on behalf of West were allegedly soliciting signatures by telling signatories that their signature would keep Trump off of the ballot.

    This seems to be something similar vis-a-vis Biden, though even more dubious:

    “44. Prior to asking Mr. Medelius any substantive questions, Chairman Hirsh then
    requested that a video from Twitter/X, originally submitted by Clear Choice Action, be presented, wherein an alleged circulator by the name of Scott Presler stated that the alleged purpose of the petition was ‘to take away votes from Joe Biden.’ According to Chairman Hirsch, the Twitter video submitted by Clear Choice Action, represented by Elias Law Group, showed the real purpose and intent of JFA—not JFA’s own submissions to NCSBE. (June 26 Meeting at 1:26:50 – 1:27:26). Evidently, after seeing a clip that was only seventeen seconds long, Chairman Hirsch felt that no other information could have been conveyed to convince him otherwise.”

    “59. The Democratic board members relied upon NCSBE staff to call individuals and ask them about their signatures on the JFA petitions. Ms. Millen noted that there was ‘a pretty high proportion’ of individuals who allegedly did not recall signing JFA’s petitions and that ‘I would suggest it may not be a small number.’ (Id. at 44:20-44:47).”

    “65. However, staff from the NCSBE revealed that they attempted to contact a list of
    250 individuals out of the approximately 17,362 signatories. Of the 250, they were able to reach 49 individuals. Of the 49 individuals, 18 said they did not sign the petition, and 3 said they did not recall. 28 acknowledged that they signed and were asked follow-up questions.”

  2. There’s a difference between take votes from Biden, which is probably accurate, and keeping Trump off the ballot, which only the Democrats tried to do, not JFA.

  3. Since petitions are typically gathered by independent contractors, there’s no way for the client to know or control what every single contractor or subcontractor is saying to every person they get it try to get to sign. Pretty much any petition ever has at least some petitioners misrepresenting what it’s about.

  4. Indeed. And that 17 second Twitter video is the most “solid” evidence I’ve seen mentioned as evidence regarding misrepresentation of petitions for West in NC.
    If that is all they have, Judge Boyle should indeed be able to rule quickly in favor of West. But you never know what the US (in)justice system will do, since it’s even less reliable than a coin flip.

  5. Cumala Herass is trying to pull dirty tricks because she is an unqualified hooker and communist mau mau.

  6. @Chris Bridges,

    They had the board staff call a sample of signers for whom they had phone numbers. Of these 250 signers, they were unable to contact 201 (e.g., these might have been wrong numbers, failure/refusal to pick up the phone, slammed the phone down, etc.)

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/2024-07-16/New%20Party%20Petitions/SBE%20Inquiry/Summary%20Calls%20to%20JFA%20Signers%20at%20Random.pdf

    Presumably the 49 who were contacted, were told something like, “This is North Carolina State Board of Elections, and we have some questions about your recent political activities.”

    Q: “You didn’t sign the petition for the Justice For All Political Party, did you? If you don’t recall, just say so.”

    18 said they didn’t sign, and 3 had no recollection.

    We’re down to 28 signers, who were contacted and would admit to signing the petition.

    “Did you understand the purpose of the petition?”

    17 said Yes, 6 said No, 2 didn’t remember, 2 said Maybe, 1 refused to answer.

    “What was your understanding of the purpose?”

    Of the 17 Yes, 10 said it was to create a new party; 1 Liked Message and Ideals; 6 along the lines of getting someone else on the ballot. The recorded answers suggested that it was for purpose of a single candidate. Only one indicated that it was to get Cornel West on the ballot.

    It is not clear from the responses whether the question suggested possible responses or not. The petition might have been signed months before the government called.

    “Did you understand it was for the support of a new political party?

    All those whose understanding was that the petition was for a 3rd Party, said Yes. But among those who had no understanding on a previous question, now understood it was for a third party.

    “Were you informed of the purpose and intent of party?” (the statute requires that “organizers and petition circulators shall inform the
    signers of the general purpose and intent of the new party.”)

    Most but not all who understood that it was a 3rd Party Petition were informed of the purpose and intent of the petition.

    The Board could not conclude that sufficient numbers of signers knew the purpose of the petition, or were misled.

    Under North Carolina statute, it is much harder to qualify as an independent candidate for President (81,000 signatures) rather than qualifying a new party which can have multiple candidates, including for President (13,000).

    That is, those signers who believed the petition was for a new 3rd Party were deceived since the real purpose was to place Cornel West on the ballot, or were given insufficient information to determine whether they wanted the party on the ballot.

    I doubt the phone survey would stand up as “proof” in a legal setting.

  7. The North Carolina Democratic Party is suing in North Carolina state court over the State Board of Elections certification of the We The People Party (this party has nominated RFKjr for President).

    The State Board of Elections has informed the federal court of this new lawsuit, where they are being sued in both state and federal over similar decisions by the board (in federal court over non-certification of Justice For All, in state court over certification of We The People). In federal court the Board is suggesting that the federal court should defer to the state court over interpretation of state law.

  8. The only way to preserve democracy is for the Democrats to be the only party on the ballot.

  9. How would these one voter forms work?

    Let’s imagine you or a neighbor want Georgia Custer to be governor of Michigan.

  10. They wouldn’t work. It’s just another retarded idea from the AZ bot.

  11. @Deprog,

    Give Thomas Jones the opportunity to articulate his rational, as well as how the system would work.

  12. Thomas Jones died a few years ago. AZ is a bot spewing his retarded beliefs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.