On August 20, a Wisconsin Democratic Party official asked the State Supreme Court to order the Elections Commission to remove Jill Stein from the ballot. Strange v Wisconsin Election Commission. The lawsuit argues that the presidential elector candidates of a qualified party can only be chosen by a meeting in the State Capitol of that party’s legislators. The law that mentions that procedure, section 8.18(1), is at ;least 70 years old and has never before been intepreted to mean that is the only way a qualified party may nominate presidential elector candidates.
The Court has ordered all briefs to be filed by August 26, and it will perhaps make a decision that day, because the State Elections Commission wishes to certify the ballot by August 27.
In the past, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled favorably in disputes involving the electoral college and minor party and independent candidates. In 1964 it ruled that the law did not require an independent presidential candidate to file a separate petition for each candidate for presidential elector, in a case won by the Socialist Workers Party. State ex rel Boulton v Zimmerman, 130 NW 2d 153. In 2004, it ruled that Ralph Nader should be on the ballot as an independent even though he didn’t nominate a presidential elector candidate from each U.S. House district. Nader v Dane County Circuit Court, 04-2559-W.
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has filed an amicus brief, arguing that the Green Party should not be on the ballot for president this year.
An interpretation that a qualified party cannot run for president unless it has state legislators would be extraordinary. Precedents in three other states have said that qualified parties cannot be denied the right to nominate for all office. In Constitution Party of Missouri v St. Louis County, a U.S. District Court in 2016 struck down a county ordinance that only the two largest parties could run for County Commission. In A Connecticut Party v Kezer, a U.S. District Court struck down a Connecticut law that only the two largest parties could run for Justice of the Peace. In New Alliance Party v North Carolina State Board of Elections, a U.S. District Court struck down a North Carolina law that new parties couldn’t run for partisan county office.
Destroy those corrupt pigs, Dr. Stein!
“Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has filed an amicus brief, arguing that the Green Party should not be on the ballot for president this year.’ Based on what, LOL? What a joke! Maybe people should argue that the Democrat Party should not be on the ballot for president this year.
Not having legislators.
It would make a lot of sense for every state to have a law that a party should, at a minimum, have state legislators in that state before being allowed on the ballot for president there.
Radley, that would make it impossible for a new party to have a presidential nominee. New parties have elected presidents of France, Mexico, Argentina, and Ukraine in the last few years. Why can’t it happen in the US?
Jill Stein was on the ballot in Wisconsin in 2012 and 2016. Two states did not accept Stein’s request for a recount in 2016, but Wisconsin did. The results of the recount were very close to the official results – Trump still won. I read that Wisconsin used mainly paper ballots for that election.
Why have attitudes in Wisconsin changed since 2016?
Have you read the Constitution, Radley? The only way for that to make sense from a legal standpoint would be via a Constitutional Amendment. And as Richard Winger pointed out, it still doesn’t make sense from a free and fair elections standpoint. It’d be a good way to shout to the world that our elections are a rigged undemocratic farce, not that they aren’t already.
We’re not any of those countries. We have a different history. Nothing like that has even come close to happening here.
Joshua, what’s the alleged constitutional violation? It actually makes sense from all those standpoints.
Radley is known and banned troll Robert K $tock. Ignore him.
@RW,
The statute says that the “convention” that nominates the presidential electors is comprised of legislative nominees of the party, as well as any state officers and Senate holdovers. The convention is held on the first Tuesday in October (October 1, 2024).
The Democrats are arguing that the Green Party does not have any nominees for the legislature and thus can not hold the “convention”. Some state office holders are elected in non-partisan elections, and Wisconsin does not have party voter registration. It is conjecture whether any persons will show up for the “convention”.
The definition of “state office” cited by the plaintiffs includes plenty of officials who are not elected statewide, and includes the Supreme Court Justices who are elected in non-partisan elections.
It would be amusing if a Justice asked the attorney for the plaintiffs what the meaning of “state officers” is? The attorney would reply that the definition is in statute (5.02(23)). “Does it include Supreme Court Justice?” “Yes.” Am I or any of my colleagues Democrats, Republicans, Greens?” “Is this a legal definition, or just conjecture?” “Can you prove or disprove it?”
@Richard Winger,
Presidential candidates in France have to have the support of 500 local officials, with some distribution requirements.
In the USA this might be effected by choosing 100,000 nominators at random from the voting rolls. They could choose to remain anonymous or make themselves known. 100 nominations from at least 20 states, and no more than 10% from any single state.
Stop trolling, your mother is Robert K. St0ck.
No parties, old or new, have elected any president of “Ukraine” in the last few years. The closest thing was Yanukovich’s first election twenty years ago, and his party had been around for seven years already before that.