On August 12, a New York state trial court judge in Albany removed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., from the ballot, on the grounds that his address on his declaration of candidacy was not accurate. Cartwright v Kennedy, 906349-24, Albany Co. Supreme Court.
See the decision here.
The judge had refused to let Kennedy make arguments about the constitutionality of the law. He will appeal. The decision does not mention Trump v Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that said Article Two implicitly bars letting states reject presidential candidates from the ballot, thus creating a “patchwork.” Nor does the decision deal with the point that the true candidates in a presidential election in November are the candidates for presidential elector.
This is only the second time in U.S. history that a presidential candidate has been removed from a general election ballot on the basis that a residence address on an election document is not accurate. The first instance was in 2020, when the Wisconsin State Board of Elections removed the Green Party ticket because the vice-presidential nominee had moved during the petition drive, so that her address was inaccurate on some of the petition sheets.
If the decision is not reversed, New York will probably be the only state in November in which only two names are on the ballot for president.
What a shame
Appeal?
When statutory use of “residence” is to be the equivalent of “domicile,” there must be bodily presence in a place and an intention of remaining in that place; neither element alone is sufficient to create a legal residence. – McDonald v. Jenson, 596 F. Supp. 6880, affirmed 786 F.2d 1465, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 207, 479 U.S. 860, 93 L.Ed.2d 137, rehearing denied 107 S.Ct. 614, 479 U.S. 1001, 93 L.Ed.2d 611
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/12/election-day-2024/74767715007/
Election Day is in 85 days, but voters in some key states can cast ballots next month
—
EARLY VOTERS/VOTING –
MORE WEEKS OF NATIONAL SECURITY GUARDING OF BALLOTS
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/12/media/new-york-times-editorial-board-stop-endorse-candidates/index.html
New York Times editorial board will no longer endorse candidates in New York races
———
14-1 AMDT — SENTENCE 1 — ***RESIDE***
Yay 🙂
Richard Winger what are your thoughts on this bogus constitutional violation
Dontou think there is a good chance this will be reversed and do you suspect they could remove him from all 50 states?
Thank you
Hector Roos,
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. did comply with NRS 41.193 and NRS 41.195 by filing in Clark County, NV a Statement of Domicile in a State other than Nevada, viz., State of New York. The law became effective on 1 October 1979.
As I understand it, Bobby Kennedy was born in Washington, DC, but his father’s Domicile of Choice at his birth was in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Therefore, Robert Kennedy Jr. Domicile of Origin was in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Then circa 1964, Bobby Kennedy Sr. established his Domicile by Choice in the State of New York, therefore it was note a choice of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. it was a matter of law because it was this father’s right because RFK Jr. was a minor at the time. This judge is just incorrect as to law.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rules-against-rfk-jr-225931987.html
AP STORY –
SCOTUS ON 24/7/365 ELECTION ALERT ???
DEFCON 0 ???
I think there is a good chance the decision will be reversed. Technically RFK Jr. is not a candidate in November, so the New York state law about addresses shouldn’t be construed to apply to him.
I highly doubt they will remove him from all 50 states. Even if he withdraws and asks to be removed, it’s likely some states won’t honor that request.
Richard Winger
I don’t understand the bit about rfk jr not technically being a candidate in November
I thought he was an independent candidate?
Appreciate it Richard
Mark, what does where he lived as a child have to do with it? He’s moved a number of times since then. The question was whether he lied on a government form about his current domicile address, as I understand it. I guess the theory is that New Yorkers may have been more likely to sign for a fellow New Yorker than a Californian, making the petition effort dishonest.
In November, the voters are choosing presidential electors. In the old days this was obvious. Before 1920, every state’s ballot listed all the candidates for presidential elector. Voters voted for individual candidates for elector. If a state had 10 electoral votes, and there were six tickets on the ballot, there were 60 candidates for presidential elector on the ballot, each one with a square next to his or her name. Voters could vote for some elector candidates from one ticket, and some more from another ticket.
States started removing the elector candidates, and Louisiana in 1980 was the last state to let voters pick and choose various elector candidates. So now practically everyone doesn’t understand what the process is. Voters choose electors in November; electors choose a president in December.
I believe Richard is referring to presidential electors being the true candidates. But, it’s still possible that claiming someone who doesn’t live in the state does could influence whether people sign or not, if that is listed on the petition. Is it? If so, it might hold up.
I don’t think the number of people who would have refused to sign if it said California would have made it impossible to get enough signatures, but there’s no way to prove that.
If the petition doesn’t list the candidates states, it seems far less likely that people would have looked up the state database before deciding to sign, but it can’t actually be proven in a legal sense either.
Richard, I’m pretty sure the argument that electors are the true candidates has not held up in a number of different states where different candidates were disqualified in different recent cycles since at least 2012. You’d know the exact details better than me.
I have heard that South Dakota still prints the names of presidential electors on the ballot.
1 2020 PREZ ELECTION – USA H REPS – 22.8 PCT MINORITY RULE
2 TPV 2020 TOTAL PREZ VOTES. R REPS IN STATE, A ACCUMULATED, PT PERCENT TOTAL
3 AREA TPV R TPV/R ATPV PT AR PT
4 RI 517,757 2 258,879 X 517,757 0.3 2 0.5
5 WV 794,731 3 264,910 X 1,312,488 0.8 5 1.1
6 WY 276,765 1 276,765 X 1,589,253 1.0 6 1.4
7 HI 574,469 2 287,235 X 2,163,722 1.4 8 1.8
8 AR 1,219,069 4 304,767 X 3,382,791 2.1 12 2.8
9 NM 923,965 3 307,988 X 4,306,756 2.7 15 3.4
10 OK 1,560,699 5 312,140 X 5,867,455 3.7 20 4.6
11 TX 11,315,056 36 314,307 X 17,182,511 10.9 56 12.9
12 NE 956,383 3 318,794 X 18,138,894 11.5 59 13.6
13 NY 8,616,861 27 319,143 X 26,755,755 16.9 86 19.8
14 MS 1,313,759 4 328,440 X 28,069,514 17.8 90 20.7
15 CA 17,501,380 53 330,215 X 45,570,894 28.8 143 32.9
16 AL 2,323,282 7 331,897 X 47,894,176 30.3 150 34.5
17 IL 6,033,744 18 335,208 X 53,927,920 34.1 168 38.6
18 IN 3,033,210 9 337,023 X 56,961,130 36.0 177 40.7
19 TN 3,053,851 9 339,317 X 60,014,981 38.0 186 42.8
20 KS 1,373,986 4 343,497 X 61,388,967 38.8 190 43.7
21 NV 1,405,376 4 351,344 X 62,794,343 39.7 194 44.6
22 KY 2,136,768 6 356,128 X 64,931,111 41.1 200 46.0
23 GA 4,999,960 14 357,140 X 69,931,071 44.2 214 49.2
24 LA 2,148,062 6 358,010 X 72,079,133 45.6 220 50.6
25 – – – – X – – – –
26 SC 2,513,329 7 359,047 X 74,592,462 47.2 227 52.2
27 AK 359,530 1 359,530 X 74,951,992 47.4 228 52.4
28 ND 362,024 1 362,024 X 75,314,016 47.6 229 52.6
29 – – – – X – – – –
30 CT 1,823,857 5 364,771 X 77,137,873 48.8 234 53.8
31 VT 367,428 1 367,428 X 77,505,301 49.0 235 54.0
32 OH 5,922,202 16 370,138 X 83,427,503 52.8 251 57.7
33 UT 1,488,289 4 372,072 X 84,915,792 53.7 255 58.6
34 AZ 3,387,326 9 376,370 X 88,303,118 55.9 264 60.7
35 MO 3,025,962 8 378,245 X 91,329,080 57.8 272 62.5
36 NJ 4,549,457 12 379,121 X 95,878,537 60.6 284 65.3
37 MD 3,037,030 8 379,629 X 98,915,567 62.6 292 67.1
38 PA 6,936,976 18 385,388 X 105,852,543 67.0 310 71.3
39 MI 5,539,302 14 395,664 X 111,391,845 70.5 324 74.5
40 NH 806,205 2 403,103 X 112,198,050 71.0 326 74.9
41 MA 3,631,402 9 403,489 X 115,829,452 73.3 335 77.0
42 VA 4,460,524 11 405,502 X 120,289,976 76.1 346 79.5
43 WA 4,087,631 10 408,763 X 124,377,607 78.7 356 81.8
44 MN 3,277,171 8 409,646 X 127,654,778 80.8 364 83.7
45 ME 819,461 2 409,731 X 128,474,239 81.3 366 84.1
46 FL 11,067,456 27 409,906 X 139,541,695 88.3 393 90.3
47 WI 3,298,041 8 412,255 X 142,839,736 90.4 401 92.2
48 SD 422,609 1 422,609 X 143,262,345 90.6 402 92.4
49 IA 1,690,871 4 422,718 X 144,953,216 91.7 406 93.3
50 NC 5,524,804 13 424,985 X 150,478,020 95.2 419 96.3
51 ID 867,934 2 433,967 X 151,345,954 95.7 421 96.8
52 CO 3,256,980 7 465,283 X 154,602,934 97.8 428 98.4
53 OR 2,374,321 5 474,864 X 156,977,255 99.3 433 99.5
54 DE 504,346 1 504,346 X 157,481,601 99.6 434 99.8
55 MT 603,674 1 603,674 X 158,085,275 100.0 435 100.0
56 50 ST 158,085,275 435 363,414 X – – – –
57 DC 344,356 0
58 LOWLITES
59 22.8 PCT OF VOTERS CAN ELECT 220 OF 435 REPS- 1/2 OF 45.6 PCT – LINE 24
60 27 OF 50 STATES [RI TO ND] HAVE VOTES/REPS RATIO BELOW AVERAGE- LINES 28,56
61 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
62 WORSE MATH WITH 3 OR MORE CANDIDATES IN EACH GERRYMANDER AREA
63 MUCH WORSE EXTREMIST PRIMARY MATH
64 REVISED MINORITY RULE AFTER NOV 2024 ELECTION- 2020 CENSUS- REPS PER STATES CHANGES
65 REMEDY – PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION- EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT EACH REP.
Richard Winger
Do you believe that when it comes to an appeal on the appellate courts the appellate judges will be having meetings to see which judge will be strongest to pin Bobby against,?
I ask this because I could be mistaken but backing the old days the Italian mob use to buy judges and to think that this behavior on some level just disappeared I find it hard to imagine
One wonders what if the judge took her time to write the written decision letter in a way that makes it nearly impossible to appeal colluding with the other judges to block Bobby?
I know this sounds conspiratorial but the entire weekend I had a gut feeling that this was gonna happen
Appreciate it Richarc
Buying judges is not just a thing of the past. Don’t ask me how I know.
How anyone can vote for DemocRats is beyond me.
2020 PREZ ELECTION — 21.7 PCT POSSIBLE PREZ MINORITY RULE
TPV 2020 TOTAL PREZ VOTES, ECV ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES
A ACCUMULATED, PT PERCENT TOTAL
LINE AREA TPV ECV TPV/ECV ATPV PT AECV
1 WY 276,765 3 92,255 276,765 0.2 3
2 DC 344,356 3 114,785 621,121 0.4 6
3 AK 359,530 3 119,843 980,651 0.6 9
4 ND 362,024 3 120,675 1,342,675 0.8 12
5 VT 367,428 3 122,476 1,710,103 1.1 15
6 RI 517,757 4 129,439 2,227,860 1.4 19
7 SD 422,609 3 140,870 2,650,469 1.7 22
8 HI 574,469 4 143,617 3,224,938 2.0 26
9 WV 794,731 5 158,946 4,019,669 2.5 31
10 DE 504,346 3 168,115 4,524,015 2.9 34
11 NM 923,965 5 184,793 5,447,980 3.4 39
12 *NE 956,383 5 191,277 6,404,363 4.0 44
13 MT 603,674 3 201,225 7,008,037 4.4 47
14 NH 806,205 4 201,551 7,814,242 4.9 51
15 AR 1,219,069 6 203,178 9,033,311 5.7 57
16 *ME 819,461 4 204,865 9,852,772 6.2 61
17 ID 867,934 4 216,984 10,720,706 6.8 65
18 MS 1,313,759 6 218,960 12,034,465 7.6 71
19 OK 1,560,699 7 222,957 13,595,164 8.6 78
20 KS 1,373,986 6 228,998 14,969,150 9.4 84
21 NV 1,405,376 6 234,229 16,374,526 10.3 90
22 UT 1,488,289 6 248,048 17,862,815 11.3 96
23 AL 2,323,282 9 258,142 20,186,097 12.7 105
24 CT 1,823,857 7 260,551 22,009,954 13.9 112
25 KY 2,136,768 8 267,096 24,146,722 15.2 120
26 LA 2,148,062 8 268,508 26,294,784 16.6 128
27 IN 3,033,210 11 275,746 29,327,994 18.5 139
28 TN 3,053,851 11 277,623 32,381,845 20.4 150
29 SC 2,513,329 9 279,259 34,895,174 22.0 159
30 IA 1,690,871 6 281,812 36,586,045 23.1 165
– – – – – – – –
31 NY 8,616,861 29 297,133 45,202,906 28.5 194
32 TX 11,315,056 38 297,765 56,517,962 35.7 232
33 IL 6,033,744 20 301,687 62,551,706 39.5 252
34 MO 3,025,962 10 302,596 65,577,668 41.4 262
35 MD 3,037,030 10 303,703 68,614,698 43.3 272
– – – – – – – –
36 AZ 3,387,326 11 307,939 72,002,024 45.4 283
37 GA 4,999,960 16 312,498 77,001,984 48.6 299
38 CA 17,501,380 55 318,207 94,503,364 59.7 354
39 NJ 4,549,457 14 324,961 99,052,821 62.5 368
40 MN 3,277,171 10 327,717 102,329,992 64.6 378
41 OH 5,922,202 18 329,011 108,252,194 68.3 396
42 WI 3,298,041 10 329,804 111,550,235 70.4 406
43 MA 3,631,402 11 330,127 115,181,637 72.7 417
44 OR 2,374,321 7 339,189 117,555,958 74.2 424
45 WA 4,087,631 12 340,636 121,643,589 76.8 436
46 VA 4,460,524 13 343,117 126,104,113 79.6 449
47 MI 5,539,302 16 346,206 131,643,415 83.1 465
48 PA 6,936,976 20 346,849 138,580,391 87.5 485
49 CO 3,256,980 9 361,887 141,837,371 89.5 494
50 NC 5,524,804 15 368,320 147,362,175 93.0 509
51 FL 11,067,456 29 381,636 158,429,631 100.0 538
– – – – – – – –
52 Total 158,429,631 538 294,479 – – –
53 LOWLITES
54 *NE+ME- STATE TOTALS – BUT HAVE GERRYMANDER ECV/REP DISTS- 3+2
55 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
56 >>> 21.7 PCT OF VOTERS CAN ELECT 272 OF 538 ECV- 1/2 OF 43.3 PCT – LINE 35
57 29 OF 50 STATES [WY TO IA] AND DC HAVE VOTES/ECV RATIO BELOW AVERAGE- LINE 52
58 WORSE MATH WITH 3 OR MORE CANDIDATES IN EACH GERRYMANDER AREA
59 MUCH WORSE EXTREMIST PRIMARY MATH
60 REVISED MINORITY RULE AFTER NOV 2024 ELECTION-
61 2020 CENSUS- REPS/ECV PER STATES CHANGES
62 REMEDY – UNIFORM VOTER DEFINITION IN ALL OF USA
63 APPROVAL VOTING – VOTE FOR 1 OR MORE, HIGHEST WINS
@Richard: But, addresses of presidents DO matter in one constitutional situation, which raised its head in 2000, until Uncle Fester Dick Cheney technically moved, and I think you know what that is.
And, per the NY State ruling, if that means Brainworm Bobby “actually” lives in California, then either he or Shanahan have to move to be eligible for that state’s electors. (I think she’s Cali?)
My dear friends,
Now you know why I am repeatedly coming here and imploring you to send money to our campaign. We have financial burdens that no other candidates have. Our legal bills are enormous. We are to the point where we will soon no longer be able to compete. It is sadly possible that the White House is slipping out of our hands.
Like Bobby’s beloved father, he is seeking a newer world for you, Johnny Zohar, and you, David, and you, Ray, and you, Andy. We don’t want to let you down.
So now I am begging you: go now to Kennnedy24.com and give till it hurts. Call 📞 all your friends and family and tell them to give all that they can as well.
God bless you, Richard Winger, for being one of our most loyal and beloved supporters.
There are five states that still print the names of the elector candidates on the November ballot, but those states don’t let voters vote for particular electors. There is no little square next to their names on the ballot.
It is ironic that Bobby Kennedy, Sr., was elected to the US Senate from New York in 1964, yet Bobby Kennedy, Sr., could not vote for himself. At the time New York required people to have lived in New York state for a year before registering to vote. So Kennedy Sr. could run in New York but he was not a registered voter at that time in New York.
So NY will be the only sensible state where voters can choose between the only two Americans who have any chance of actually getting elected. No wonder why they call it the Empire State. From Buffalo to Brooklyn, we beat you shithole states by a mile. Out judges are smarter than yours, assholes.
Oh and will someone shut up Cheryl? What an annoying whore.
Johnny Zohar,
How anyone who is not a Trump cultist can vote for anyone other than a Democrat for President is beyond me. You do realize one of the two will win. Or are you delusional enough to not know that?
Cheryl,
That new world would be fascist dictatorship under Trump. No thanks. The white house is not slipping out of your hands. You have no chance, and never did.
Brainworm Bobby officially says he’ll appeal https://www.kennedy24.com/kennedy_appeal_partisan_ruling_new_york_ballot_access_residency_case
Marty, there are other states where dead bear brain worm guy is being challenged or has not finished petitioning or been certified, and NY may or may not hold up, so way too early to tell.
Cheryl is annoying, but I don’t think anyone is going to shut her up. Whore is not a bad word to me. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with sex work. I don’t think it’s immoral, and I think it should be legal. I’m not going to give Cheryl tips on how to get people to waste more money, but let’s just say she’s doing it wrong. If she’s any good at selling her body, even if only online, she’ll figure it out herself.
Just me,
Not surprising at all.
So long as the presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate do not inhabit in the same state when Electors cast their votes in December, they both qualify to receive the votes of Electors for their respective offices.
Article II of the Constitution (as well as the Twelfth Amendment, which modified it) specified that electors must “vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves,” a requirement that guaranteed at least half of each state’s electoral votes would be cast for candidates from other states.
This requirement is still in effect, but confusion arises when people misunderstand it to govern the actions of candidates rather than Electors. Nothing in the constitution bars presidential and vice-presidential candidates from the same state from running, being elected, or holding office together; it only bars the Electors from their home state from voting for both of them.
U.S. political parties typically avoid nominating tickets featuring candidates from the same state, even though they are not constitutionally required to do so.
Electors are disqualified from casting one of their two ballots if at least one candidate is not an inhabitant of the same state as the Elector.
It appears Electors would choose to cast their presidential ballot and not their vice presidential ballot. If no person has a majority of Electors votes for Vice President, then the Senate chooses from the two highest vote getters. So it is mathematically possible a majority of Senators could elect a vice presidential candidate not of the same party as the prevailing presidential candidate, but who is also an inhabitant of the same state as the elected president.
That’s the best I can make of the convoluted 12th Amendment.
The NY court in this case is intervening with the ability of NY Electors to choose for whom to vote regardless of which state a candidate will be inhabiting when the Electors cast their ballots in December 2024. The candidate need only physically occupy an “abode” in a state to be an inhabitant. There is no property requirement in the qualifications for President and Vice President. A person could own or rent a residence if all states and DC, but can only inhabit one place at a time.
What you or I make of the 12th amendment doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is what holds up in court. I would agree with your interpretation, but since 2012, it’s not reliable that it will hold up as an argument in court, although it still may sometimes. Richard would know how many cases it has and hasn’t. I’ve lost track/forgot.
Cheryl, I won’t donate, but I’ll tell you what rad won’t. If you want to use your onlyfans to fundraise, you need to include a link. Otherwise it’s not exactly an incentive. I think you’re probably chasing diminishing returns here at this point and your ROI would be better elsewhere. Social media sites where your non only fans pics are included with each post are your best bet. For sites like this one, link your email to a disqus and put a teaser photo as your avatar.
You can troll for donors at more heavily visited sites where the average comment counts are a lot higher. Spread yourself around more instead of hammering the same limited audience.
Frank, exactly. I think the bone of contention is the alleged lie on the form. If it holds up, I think it will be based on the argument that people would have been less likely to sign if it had a California address. I think they would have still made it anyway, but there’s no way to prove that.
I don’t think anyone is actually alleging he can’t be a NY or CA resident. Both have been on NY ballots. The 12th amendment would only matter in California, and there he could move before the electoral college met if he somehow won the state.
But lying on government forms is illegal anywhere, and actionable, especially if it materially impacts the outcome of e.g. a petition getting enough valid sigs within the allotted time frame. I don’t know whether he lied, and I don’t remember whether the form lists an address for the candidates.
Is Cheryl the same Cheryl that is Rfk jrs wife? She doesn’t have to answer if course. I won’t donate regardless, but it would be mildly interesting if rfk Jrs wife has an onlyfans. No, I won’t join her site. Just slightly curious.
If she’s a different Cheryl, I’m also mildly curious whether she’s an actual Cheryl or chose that as her screen name because she wishes she was in that position. But I won’t pry, LOL
Just me, yes, Shanahan is pure Cali. She has more money than I’ll see in my life, most of which she didn’t earn unless you count her marriages as sex work. If their delusional campaign is having financial problems, she can solve them easily. It should tell you something that she doesn’t feel like writing another check, even as a donor match challenge.
HEY Marty….
Calling a women a whore simply because you don’t like what she says is really a sad example of a male.
Hopefully most guys on here including me would not use that term simply because a women did not agree with their opinion.
No, it’s because she mentioned only fans on another post. Online prostitution is still prostitution imo. And because she keeps asking for money.
I would agree with you that whore would be inappropriate merely for being a female and having a different opinion, and guys can be whores just as much as women.
I don’t make any assumptions about what most guys on here would or would not do, and I don’t care. What I do is what I do and what I don’t is what I don’t, regardless of how many people do or do not agree with me.
I don’t have any problem calling sex workers whores. But I have nothing against sex workers. Get in where you fit in and make your money, don’t let the money make you.
Whore is also an appropriate term for those of us who have done political work for financial gain regardless of our actual beliefs. I don’t know whether Cheryl is on commission. I doubt it, because her links don’t include a referral code.
Ray on,
You have Domicile by Oregin and Domicle by Choice. If your Domicile by Choice is lost one goes back to Domicile by Oregin. That is the Commonwealth of Virginia.
A ridiculous ruling, but so was Trump v Anderson. The whole “not creating a patchwork” argument is a federalist infringement on states’ autonomy. It would be better if Kennedy will, and Trump had, won their cases without resorting to that argument.
The argument that voters are selecting “electors” and not candidates is the same argument why I believe fusion voting bans that prevent political parties from placing the same “candidate” on the ballot should not apply either.
Absolutely agree with Richard here. The recent Anderson decision must apply here. That’s good law that was ignored by this judge.
Mark Seidenberg on,
I have no idea what you are talking about. How can a domicile by choice be “lost”? Everyone has to have a legal domicile by choice. That is, where they actually live the bulk of the time. People who split their time between states have to pick one for purposes such as registering to vote and paying state taxes. If that status is challenged for some reason, there are various ways to prove that they are actually primarily based where they say – interviews with neighbors, sales receipts, testimony from people they do business with, etc.
Do you have any recent case law backing your domicile by origin reversion theory, or is this on the same level as your claims about natural born citizen meaning? I don’t care about original intent except as an academic exercise. Generally speaking, courts don’t either, even judges who pay lip service to the concept. They’ll invoke it only when it bolsters how they want to rule anyway, and very rarely if it upsets the applecart of established precedent.
I’m a bit disappointed with Mr Kennedy. One would think that someone running an allegedly serious campaign for President would have thought these issues through beforehand. His running mate is from California, where he seems to be usually living. Why couldn’t he have gotten some rental in New York, if he wanted to claim residency there, and solve the issue before it became a problem?
Anyway, where he is a resident doesn’t become an issue for the election until the electors vote, and presumably only for his electors in California, if he actually carries that state. So, there is still time to remedy the issue, if it even ever matters.
RE ALL THE RFKJR RESIDENCE/PETITION CASES —
ALL MORE REASONS TO ABOLISH THE MINORITY RULE EC SYSTEM IN ART II AND 12 AMDT, ETC—- 1201 PM ABOVE
THE USA AND A-L-L STATE CONSTS ARE INFECTED WITH ALL SORTS OF F–A–T–A–L LATE DARK AGE DEFECTS — CARRIED OVER FROM THE OLDE PRE-1776 BRIT MONARCH/OLIGARCH SYSTEM AND OLDE COLONY CHARTERS.
—
UNIFORM DEFINITION OF USA/STATE ELECTOR-VOTER — USA CITIZEN, 18 PLUS YEARS OLDE – BE REGISTERED BY 28 DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAYS —- NOOOO MENTAL/CRIMINAL LOOPHOLES
PR IN ALL LEGIS BODIES — REAL MAJORITY RULE
APPV FOR NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS
TOTSOP
@Richard Winger,
The elector candidates were listed on the petition. In New York, candidates for multiple offices may be on a single petition. For example, there were Libertarian petitions, listing a candidate for the legislature, the president and vice-president candidate, and elector candidates.
See this petition for the Libertarian Party:
https://lpny.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/LPNY-Petition-2024-StatewideAD107-NR.pdf
Note that the addresses of the elector candidates, as well as the assembly candidate are given on the petition. In the Kennedy litigation, Kennedy, Shanahan, and 28 elector candidates are named as candidate-respondents. The respondent was the NYSBOE who the plaintiffs were seeking to have removed the ballot.
In New York, a petition is by the signers of the petition (see statement at top of petition form). Kennedy and Shanahan and the 28 elector candidates were required to consent to their nomination. New York retains a traditional sense of petitioners choosing a candidate, and the candidate accepting/declining the nomination. There is also a designated vacancy committee for independent candidates. In most states, if an independent candidate dies, the candidacy is terminated.
If I were challenging the judge’s decision, I would argue that the signers wanted Kennedy on the ballot, and they used his NY State voter registration address. It is irrelevant that Kennedy urged them to do so. The judge should inform each of the signers personally. After all, they only represent a modicum. Surely the judge and his bailiff could handle this.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/08/12/judge-rules-against-rfk-jr-in-fight-to-be-on-new-yorks-ballot/74775745007/
AP STORY RE NY STUFF
@David,
Look at the Wikipedia article for the 1912 California Presidential election. It shows the votes cast for each elector candidate. Two Wilson electors were chosen. One had more votes than the remainder of the Wilson elector candidates, and one Roosevelt elector received fewer votes than the other electors.
Note that Hiram Johnson (Roosevelt’s running mate) was governor and the progressives controlled the Republican Party and its ballot access. Taft had to run as a write-in candidate. But voters could not simply write-in “Taft” on their ballot. They had to write-in each individual name of an elector.
Reading the opinion, I don’t think the judge made a determination of where Kennedy resides. He made a decision that he did not reside at one particular address.
“Why couldn’t he have gotten some rental in New York, if he wanted to claim residency there, and solve the issue before it became a problem?”
He did, in addition to owning property there. The New York court found that this was not an honest attempt to establish residence. Which would have been none of their business has he listed his California address – New York electors would have still been theoretically eligible to vote for him in the electoral college, every precedent indicates that the potential 12th amendment problem wouldn’t keep anyone off any state ballot, and personally I don’t believe listing the California address would have hurt the petition drive to the point of failing (maybe made it more expensive, but they can afford it).
It’s lying on a government form that gives the state the opening to refuse to accept his petition, not a 12th amendment issue per se.
“Anyway, where he is a resident doesn’t become an issue for the election until the electors vote, and presumably only for his electors in California, if he actually carries that state. So, there is still time to remedy the issue, if it even ever matters.”
Yes, but there’s no time to remedy the issue of whether he listed a false residence on the petition or with attending documents filed with the state. At best, he can hope an appeals court finds that to be immaterial. That seems like a odds against bet to me, but we’ll see.
Jim Riley – thanks for refreshing my memory. So, the form does list Kennedy’s alleged address. I think that makes his appeal more difficult, if he can’t establish that was not a lie. At this point the burden of proof is on him, given that the lower court found that it was a lie. I think. Am I wrong?
@WZ,
Kennedy had already decided to use the New York address. In Texas, a presidential petition has the name and address of the presidential candidate. It is the application that has the name of the vice-presidential candidate and the elector candidates. The petition is filed as part of the application. In Texas, the petition was circulated for three weeks prior to his selection of Shanahan.
His ballot access attorney had advised him to use *one* of his three potential residences. He could have chosen Hyannis Port or Los Angeles, or New York. He has maintained his voter registration in New York.
If the state of residence of his running mate was a concern, it would be because she was not a resident of New York. It is hypothetical that if Kennedy had considered AOC or Hillary Clinton as a running mate, they were rejected because they were also from New York.
“Reading the opinion, I don’t think the judge made a determination of where Kennedy resides. He made a decision that he did not reside at one particular address.”
I think you’re right. But, that’s the address his campaign listed on their petition. Which could have, theoretically at least, caused his petition to fail, if he had been honest and if we stipulated that he did in fact lie.
“If I were challenging the judge’s decision, I would argue that the signers wanted Kennedy on the ballot, and they used his NY State voter registration address. It is irrelevant that Kennedy urged them to do so. The judge should inform each of the signers personally. After all, they only represent a modicum. Surely the judge and his bailiff could handle this.”
That sounds like it would open up a huge can of worms to me. They would find a lot of people who don’t live at their alleged address, a lot of people who would admit to not actually supporting Kennedy, etc. And, wouldn’t the judge just say the voter registration itself was out of date or fraudulent and should have been updated rather than accepting it as an excuse for a false residence address used in the petition?
“If the state of residence of his running mate was a concern, it would be because she was not a resident of New York. ”
Is there a typo in there? If not,that doesn’t make sense. They can’t both be from New York, at least in December if they were to some how win the state, so any potential “problem” would run in the other direction, if anything, as your examples of HRC and AOC suggest.
But she’s clearly from California, so there’s no issue there. If he’s also from California, that’s still not a problem for New York, only for California. From meaning resident of.
So the only problem is listing an erroneous and misleading residence address on a petition.
@Ray,
Perjury requires intent. There is no evidence that Kennedy used the New York address so that he could choose Shanahan.
His Texas petition had the New York address on it, and it was circulated before he had announced his selection of Shanahan. In Texas, the application has the name of the vice presidential candidate. The petition is attached to the application when the application is filed.
There is no requirement that the same running mate be used in each State.
In the 1824 Presidential election, Andrew Jackson only received 38% of the electoral votes, and John Quincy Adams, who was eventually chosen by the House, only 32%. Meanwhile, John C. Calhoun received 70% of the vice-presidential electoral votes.
Bottom line is that this was politically motivated
Initialy the judge waited for a long time as he was being badgered by Colbert until his attorney Savino had to step in and interject for an objection
Then she was more fair only after Savino requested an objection
This shows bias to begin with
Moreover she was behaving in controlling manner constantly asking Savino where did Kennedy go when he stepped out of the court room for a moment
She also didn’t allow any constitutional arguments on the final day essentially blocking the legal teams freedom of speech
The DNC attorneys also cut off Savino several times by design as this was probably planned having one person take notesn, one person questioning and cross examining and another person cutting of the opposing attorney
He shouldn’t have been cut off so many times by the co-attorney.The judge should have stepped in an been more unbiased
This sounds very much like it was politically motivated
In the closing arguments Colbert used the words this being a sham petition effort and she also used the same words towards the end of her decision letter..sham
This has the sounds of collusion not just because she’s a democrat but her actions mentioned above in the court room
Comrade Marty and Comrade G,
Speaking as an actual whore (as in professional sex worker – I’m a slut too, but that’s a separate matter), I personally don’t find the term offensive, although some other sex workers do. What I find more offensive is that Marty thinks Cheryl needs to be shutted up against her will just because she’s annoying. It’s in that context only that “whore” is or should be offensive.
Basically, what Marty is implying is that he is too childish to simply scroll past commenters he finds annoying, and believe other people are too childish to make those choices as well, so she needs to have her speaking rights removed, and additionally that being a whore – whether in the sense of onlyfans sex worker, slut, someone who keeps soliciting money even if it’s not for sexual services, or some combination of these – bolsters his argument that her speech is somehow uniquely beyond the pale.
That, not “whore” in and of itself, is what is offensive to me. Call me a whore all day, and I’m sure many of you find me annoying. Saying I need to be shutted up because I’m an annoying whore is what I would find offensive. As a whore, I have a built in financial incentive to not be annoying, because how many customers want to hire annoying whores? I can be annoying in other contexts, where I’m not soliciting money (whether for sex or politics).
That being said: Cheryl, bae, you are an annoying hoe :-p
Not because I don’t support your candidate – at this point I no longer see him as a threat, even if some in my party clearly still do.
I would just find your kind of pitch annoying even if I marginally supported your candidate. Take it from one hoe to another, girl, you need to level up your game. But you do you, if that’s what works for you!
“Perjury requires intent. There is no evidence that Kennedy used the New York address so that he could choose Shanahan.”
I don’t think it has anything to do with his selection of Shanahan. A more plausible explanation for the perjury would be that at least some New Yorkers are more apt to sign for a Presidential candidate from their own state than one from California.
“His Texas petition had the New York address on it, and it was circulated before he had announced his selection of Shanahan. In Texas, the application has the name of the vice presidential candidate. The petition is attached to the application when the application is filed.”
If I’m not mistaken, the average Texan views a New Yorker and a Californian in about equally negative ways, if that matters to them at all in deciding whether to sign this type of petition. So, it would be a much less plausible argument in Texas that Kennedy could have conceivably tried to fraudulently get people to sign by using the New York address or the California address.
Had he had a Texas address he had used, that would be another matter. Same with a New York address as far as New Yorkers go.
“There is no requirement that the same running mate be used in each State.”
True, but what does that have to do with this? I don’t see where this has anything to do with his vp at all. It has to do with whether a guy who actually lives in California pretended to live in New York in order to falsely induce New York voters to put a favorite son on their ballot.
All signers of Kennedy/Shanahan/28 Electors petition made the following statement (by signing the petition):
“I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a registered voter of the political unit for which a nomination for public office is hereby being made, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby nominate the following named persons as candidates for election to public offices to be voted for at the election to be held on the 5th day of November, 2024, and that I select the name Libertarian Party as the name of the independent body making the nominations and the image to the right as the emblem of such body.”
For purposes of the petition, the only reason for having an address for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.; is to identify which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. the signer is nominating. The addresses of the elector candidates might have mattered, since they presumably must be residents of New York.
“This sounds very much like it was politically motivated”
It absolutely does, but there is what you think and what you can prove. All things being equal, appeals judges tend to give their fellow black robed fellowship members the benefit of the doubt. This being New York, you’re probably likely to deal with D or D leaning judges all the way up. If federal courts intervene, it may be only after state options are exhausted and state courts can drag it out til past ballot printing time if nothing else.
So my read is you probably won’t get injunctive relief – ESPECIALLY if there’s collusion.
Of course, I could be wrong. We shall see. But in the meantime, if you think I’m wrong, why do you think that?
@Ray,
Do you think he used that same New York address to falsely induce Texas voters to put him on their ballot?
“For purposes of the petition, the only reason for having an address for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.; is to identify which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. the signer is nominating.”
It’s inconceivable to you that some people are more apt to nominate some one from their own state than someone from a rival state on the other side of the country? Really?
And your hypothetical solution of contacting the signers would open a huge can of worms. In the field, if petitioners are having their validity checked by the campaign to determine their pay , they tell voters to put the address where they are registered to vote even if they don’t live there anymore, although that’s literally not what that statement says.
Few voters read the statement. Typical petitioner pitches go along the lines of “sign here to put independent candidates on the ballot” and then if asked which ones “they’re listed at the top but you don’t have to vote for them, this is just to have them listed on the ballot to give voters another choice besides Biden (at the time) and Trump” or some variations of those lines. Or, they might say “This is to help split the Biden (or Democrat) vote” id they are working in a primarily Republican area or vice versa in a primarily D area.
That’s standard industry practice, and it often gets way more deceptive than that.
I would not advise the campaign to ask the court to contact the signers. Try that strategy and see if you don’t believe me.
“Do you think he used that same New York address to falsely induce Texas voters to put him on their ballot?”
No. In fact, I don’t think he used it falsely to device New York voters either. I just think it’s an argument his opposition can plausibly make to keep him off the ballot in New York.
If his counterargument is that he also used the NY address and not the CA address in Texas a NY judge would probably say “I don’t care what you do in Texas, it’s outside my jurisdiction” (you’ll be better at putting this into actual legalese than me).
Do you disagree?
Device was typo for induce if that was not immediately obvious.
Or a judge might say in effect: well, basically he had to flip a coin in Texas and went with New York. What else ya got?
Comrades supporting brainwormspermperson,
Do you honestly believe your candidate still has some chance to actually take the oath of office? Are you in any way, shape or form in touch with reality if you do? Please be honest.
Like I said, I’m no longer worried about him being on the ballot. Kamala Harris will win whether he is or not, and he might even help her win. This is especially true in New York.
But please be honest with us and yourselves. It’s way too late in the game for the fake it til you make it approach. Voters start actual early voting next month.
Funding will not take you from 4% to parity, particularly when you won’t be in the debate(s). If it would, comrade Shanahan has it in her hands whether she will be the next Madam Vice President. At least get her to offer a donor match, like comrade Ray suggests? If you can’t even get her to do that much, you know how seriously she takes the idea that she and her running mate might win.
I mean, that’s why she’s on the ticket, right?
Also, do you know what funding parity really would take? High 9-10 figures before the period, before you even consider the much worse starting position (and we are not at the start). When you take that into account, 10 figures – that’s billions – to actually be competitive. Show me your business plan to ramp up that quickly if you’re not tent show hucksters raking the townsfolk for their cash at the county fair (another job I’ve had, btw)
No Presidential nominee from a major party would be given the same treatment.
Correction @ 940 if unclear:
Comrade brainwormspermperson is especially unlikely to tip New York at all, either way.
If I still saw him as a threat, I’d counter that keeping him off the ballot or tying him up in court anywhere helps to break his momentum everywhere.
But that would only be true if he had momentum in a direction other than gravity. And that’s clearly not the case.
Term limits: you’re right. That and 12 bucks gets you a Starbucks drink in Manhattan. Theoretical appeals to fairness only works so long as people see politics as akin to a sports competition. More see it as akin to total war now. Fairness doesn’t matter in total war, only winning matters.
I don’t agree with the strategy of Democratic activists fighting to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot. If I don’t have the opportunity to vote for Kennedy because a Democrat-allied group kept him off the ballot I’m not going to vote for Harris. I might vote for Trump. Or write in a name, or cast the ballot with that race blank. I’ll certainly vote for Republicans down ballot.
I’m thinking of drafting a statement and getting those who signed for Bobby’s ballot access to declare they they don’t in any way feel misled by the petition drive rather they feel that they feel their constitutional rights was violated by Corbett and want Bobby on the ballot either as one template or each person fax the Albany Supreme courts
What do you think of this?
If anyone here sees an argument for the 140k plus people who signed intervene
Any of you law experts
Thank you
If they feel this is truefkr them
If they feel this is true for them
I believe the voters in ny have a say I this matter
“I don’t agree with the strategy of Democratic activists fighting to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot. If I don’t have the opportunity to vote for Kennedy because a Democrat-allied group kept him off the ballot I’m not going to vote for Harris. I might vote for Trump. Or write in a name, or cast the ballot with that race blank. I’ll certainly vote for Republicans down ballot.”
I think they value the marginal break on any potential national Kennedy momentum over your personal vote in New York. That makes some Machiavellian sense regardless of what you or I think of the ethics.
“I’m thinking of drafting a statement and getting those who signed for Bobby’s ballot access to declare they they don’t in any way feel misled by the petition drive rather they feel that they feel their constitutional rights was violated by Corbett and want Bobby on the ballot either as one template or each person fax the Albany Supreme courts
What do you think of this?”
As mentioned previously, I think you’ll run into a lot of people who don’t live at the address that they put on the petition or are never there when you try to contact them, are pissed that anyone is contacting them at all because they were promised no one would, or indeed never did intend to nominate Kennedy.
Try a sample if you think I’m wrong.
Good luck with that.
Even better luck with the idea that they will fax the Albany courts on your behalf.
“I believe the voters in ny have a say I this matter”
Then by all means go test your theory out. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
How about filing an amiscus brief to the Albany Supreme Court?
Kennedy is filing in the Federal Court…
David,
Knock yourself out and file all the amici you want. Good luck.
Bobby G,
There are levels of appeals in federal courts too, and they’re likely to give state courts time to exhaust options, etc. My prediction is no injunctive relief bottom line. I hope I’m wrong. And I’m not a Kennedy supporter.
DOES RFKJR *RESIDE* IN A MOVING VAN / RECVECH — IN CONTINUOUS MOTION ACROSS THE PLANET —
LOOKING FOR BRAINWORMS / DEAD BEARS / ETC ???
LOL
@Ray,
I don’t know if have read Judge Ryba’s opinion. Much of it constitutes of the testimony of witnesses (or at least the judge’s comprehension – it was a non-jury trial). Paul Rossi, who is Kennedy’s ballot access counsel advised Kennedy in November 2023 to choose one of three potential residences – Hyannis Port, New York, or California. He also pointed out that some states required a residence on a candidate form to be where a candidate is registered to vote.
In Texas, a candidate for state office must be registered to vote, and you can only be registered where you live. This address would be used to determine whether the candidate lived in the district or not.
It might not be legally material that a presidential candidate be registered to vote, but since applications are usually sworn, it is easier to swear that you are registered, than to highlight the fact by crossing it out. AFAIK, Kennedy had never changed his voter registration from New York.
Jim Riley,
RFk Jr. Did file in Clark County. NV a Statement of Domicle in a State other than Nevada,viz.,State of New York.
The statement complied with NRS 41.193 and NRS 41.195.
Jim Riley,
As I see it a look at the filing in the Albany case will show if the Statement filed in Clark County District Court was filled in the Albany case.
If it was filed then we may have an additional issue of the court in Albany questioning the Statement to
the Nevada Court.
I understand all that. But if the registration residence is itself fraudulent, wouldn’t that campaign choice be fruit of a poison tree, and in the case of New York, also potentially prejudicial to prospective signers?
Jim Riley,
I was informed that the “Statement of Domicile in a State other than the State of Nevada”, viz., State of New York was filed in CARTWRIGHT v. KENNEDY, 906349-24 in the Supreme Court of New York at Albany.
With 184 documents in that case it would take some research to locate that document number.
Do you know the document number out of the 184 documents, since that statement is the most important in that case?
Richard,
W⁵eww²hat will happen in New York now with this order?
Will New York due What California and viz., remove alle is name as Eldridge Clever was done in 1968 in California and Utah?
Sorry a typo for “what”.
TBD – appeals upcoming. Read above.
RAY oN,
That was not my question the appeal. What did the judge do about ballot access in New York State for the Kennedy Ticket in the General Election
2024. Did the Judge order effect to candidates for Presential Electors in New York State to the extent in dis to Eldridge Cleaver in 1968 in Utah and California.
@MS,
The lawsuit was against the NYSBOE. They were ordered to invalidate the petition for Kennedy, Shanahan, and 28 elector candidates, and to not place any of those 30 candidates on the general election ballot.
What is it with the se New York judges and their unwillingness to allow people to make a valid argument? They do it to Kennedy here, and they did it to Trump in the Bragg case when they refused to allow the former head of the FEC testify about Federal election law.
They’re a different breed. Even more arrogant than judges in other states.