On September 13, the Nevada Green Party asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ruling of the State Supreme Court that had removed it from the ballot. Nevada Green Party v Aguilar, 24A262. Here is the filing.
The application was submitted to Justice Elena Kagan, who asked the Democratic Party to respond by Tuesday, September 17.
UPDATE: here is a news story from The Hill.
It seems every time a “third” party goes to the Supreme Court to complain about un-American and immoral ballot access laws, all of a sudden the court is all for “states rights” and there is nothing the court can do.
Scott, the US Supreme Court says nothing when it denies a cert petition. And no unfavorable full ballot access decision from the US Supreme Court has ever said “states rights”. All the unfavorable US Supreme Court decisions from 1972 through 1993 were written by Justice Byron White, and he always said “stability.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/green-party-jill-stein-supreme-court-nevada/index.html
CNN
SEPARATE –
https://www.yahoo.com/news/just-few-hours-u-election-192311367.html
BETTING ON ELECTIONS
US CT APP DC
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/09/13/robert-f-kennedy-jr-suffers-another-defeat-in-effort-to-get-off-michigan-ballot-hearing-set/75212213007/
MORE ON TUES 17 SEP 2024
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawsuit-alleges-plot-run-sham-174906058.html
FL – SHAM CANDS
I imagine the Republican appointees of the court are quite torn on this issue. On one hand, they don’t want to undermine the ruling that let Trump off the hook from being thrown off the ballot. On the other hand, they and probably the (un)Democratic appointees don’t want to allow equal rights for third party supporters and candidates, lest they risk undermining their precious two party system. Should be interesting to see how they rule on this one.
SCOTUS should have ruled explicitly that Trump has not been found guilty of sedition and therefore states cannot use that or other J6-faux-“insurrection”-related excuses to try and keep him off the ballot. But instead of being honest and doing the right thing, they went with the more expedient and non-committal excuse of not creating a patchwork of ballot access, which is an inane argument.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with states creating a patchwork of ballot access in federal elections. And forcing states to put a candidate on their ballot, merely because other states have done so, infringes upon states’ rights, on the basis of the logical fallacy that the majority knows best.
If everyone else suddenly jumped off a bridge, should you do so too? Apparently, the supreme court thinks that you should.
Citizens for Proportional Representation (CPR)
http://www.usparliament.org
Free and Equal uses the wrong math.
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in single-winner election districts (used in California and six other state-level election districts) is a one-party system.
Google Inc and FairVote launched off of my work with Citizens for Proportional Representation in October 1997 in the same paragraph of text that was deleted from Usenet (AKA now as “Google Groups”) in my conversation about Citizens for Proportional Representation (CPR).
Now we have the difficult task of un-doing that damage by Google and FairVote ASAP.
* * *
Alert the loonie bin teams with the vans, white coats and catcher nets – Ogle escaped!