The Georgia Supreme Court will hear the ballot access case involving presidential candidates Claudia De la Cruz and Cornel West on Tuesday, September 24, at 10 a.m. They both petitioned, but then a lower state court judge ruled their petitions should not have been on behalf of the candidates, but on behalf of each candidate’s presidential elector candidates. In other words, the candidates should have prepared petitions for each of their presidential elector candidates and circulated those petitions.
The two candidates’ names are already on the ballot, but the lower court ruled that votes for them should not be counted. If the State Supreme Court reverses the lower court, then their votes will be counted. The Secretary of State is on the same side as the two candidates; the Democratic Party is on the other side.
“The two candidates’ names are already on the ballot, but the lower court ruled that votes for them should not be counted” Wtf, that sounds uncommon and odd. They’re already on the ballot, so they should be counted.
Of course the anti-democratic Democrat Party opposes democracy, no one is surprised.
@PL,
An administrative law judge had ruled they should not be on the ballot. Apparently this is more a recommendation than a decision. The SOS reversed the decision. His decision was challenged in a real court. By that time, the SOS argued that ballots would need to be reprinted. The judge ruled that they should not be on the ballot, but since it would be too expensive to reprint ballots (and possibly recall mail ballots that had been sent out), the judge ruled that votes for the two would not be counted, and that signs would be posted at polling places to that effect. That is the decision being appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
In a footnote to the decision, the judge ruled that Georgia was named in honor of George Orwell. It had not been named in honor of … someone else – ever – because Georgia had a republican form of government and the people wore clothes and walked on two legs.