On September 26, the U.S. Supreme Court docketed Ayyadurai v New Jersey Democratic Committee, 24-342. The issue is whether Shiva Ayyadurai, an independent presidential candidate who was born in India, should have been left on the New Jersey ballot. He had enough valid signatures but was removed because of Article Two qualifications. However, five times in the past, New Jersey has printed the names of presidential and vice-presidential candidates who were either under age 35 or who were not born in the United States.
Here is the filing.
Ayyadurai had filed the case with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 20. It is odd that the court took so long to put it on the docket.
Counting ineligible candidates in the past doesn’t mean they should be allowed in the future. That’s like getting a speeding ticket and saying “but I do it all the time!”
The true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector, and Ayyadurai’s electors met all the qualifications.
Sorry, Richard, but those electors would be (if selected) voting for an ineligible person.
Per Mr. Spock: “A difference that makes no difference IS no difference.”
(But, this is another good reason to get rid of the electoral college; we get rid of such Jesuitical parsing, as well.)
It shouldn’t be up to secretaries of state or state courts to determine who is or isn’t an ineligible person ahead of ballot printing. That should be up to congress in accepting or not accepting electoral votes.
20-3 AMDT — FED QUALIFS OF PREZ/VP
There are obviously cases where interpretation differs, given the number of lawsuits about whether this or that person is eligible this year as well as in past years.
Just Me is Robert K Stock.
If the electors were elected, we don’t know for sure whom they would vote for. In 2016 there were 7 disobedient electors. There were also 3 other electors who were booted when they cast a disobedient vote.
And, Richard, more and more states every two years have legislatures cracking down on disobedient electors and you know that, too. You referenced that, in part, in the second half of your comment.
And, per the last part of your original post, two wrongs don’t make a right, not even in the cesspool of New Jersey.
The electoral college isn’t the problem any which way you twist it.
And faithless electors aside, Shiva can instruct his electors to cast their vote for another candidate (either one specific candidate, or one of several candidates, or even any candidate the elector desires), if he gets barred from taking office or feels that he will likely get barred.
If we are not going to correct for having previously allowed ineligibles from the uniparty (including but not limited to Chester Arthur, Barack Obama and Kamala Harris) to take office, then we should not be barring third party independent ineligibles from taking office either. We have set a bad precedent, so now we either do the right thing and fix it, or we stick with doing things wrong but do so consistently. But the uniparty should not get to have its cake and eat it too!
Regardless, that is not Shiva’s electors problem. They are legitimate electors. Shiva could unbind them. Perhaps the supreme court could even order Shiva to do so. But not doing so does not somehow make the electors illegitimate.
ANY “disobedient electors” STILL POSSIBLE IN ANY STATE/DC ???
IE AUTO VACANCY IF ATTEMPT TO BE A disobedient elector – auto replaced ???
—-
HURRICANE FLOODS/ETC
BALLOTS FLOODED / VOTING PLACES FLOODED / VOTING MACHINES FLOODED / ???
TOTAL CHAOS IN MARGINAL STATES – ESP GA AND NC ???
The electoral college is racist and violates one person, one vote. Shut it down.
On the contrary, every state should have its own electoral college as well, to ensure that all the counties are represented, not just those where the state’s population has concentrated itself.
For example, 26 of California’s 58 counties voted for Trump in 2016; and of the other 32, Clinton failed to get a majority in 6 of them, and barely scraped a majority in another 7. If each county got at least three electors and additional ones depending on their population, Trump would likely have carried California.
That would make things even more racist and thus even more wrong.
How is guaranteeing that each state is represented, racist? And how would guaranteeing that each county is represented in each state, make things more racist? How can preventing a tyranny of the majority ever be racist?
Tyranny of the racist minority is racist. Trump is a racist. Nuna is a racist. The electoral college is racist. It was originally intended to be racist by racists, and it’s still racist.
The Electoral College’s Racist Origins
theatlantic d0t com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/
Anyone who has doubts that nun A is racist should see her recent claim that African-Americans owe reparations to whites for the middle passage, slavery, and Jim Crow.
She also claims that the rest of the world should kiss white people’s asses for colonialism, imperialism, slavery, capitalism, etc:
https://ballot-access.org/2024/09/22/filing-closes-for-guam-presidential-election-ballot/#comment-1252435
“Anyone who has doubts that nun A is racist should see her recent claim that African-Americans owe reparations to whites for the middle passage, slavery, and Jim Crow. She also claims that the rest of the world should kiss white people’s asses for colonialism, imperialism, slavery, capitalism, etc.”
Those are Taran’s claims (if he were logically consistent in his cognitive dissonance or honest with himself):
https://ballot-access.org/2024/09/22/filing-closes-for-guam-presidential-election-ballot/#comment-1252435
But I don’t think Taran is a “she”, let alone a nun. 😏
Thanks for the link to the comment where you made those outrageous racist statements, Nuna/Nun A. It’s redundant since I already posted the link directly above you, you lazy racist idiot beyotch. Now back to diddling yourself with hallucinogen smeared broomstick handles like all the rest of the nuns, you wacky crazy nun!
Even for a nun, Nun A/NunA is unusually crazy, and all nuns are total wack jobs. In more ways than one!
@Richard Winger,
The logic behind the faithful(-less) elector laws is that the State is making a representation that if the presidential candidate receives the most votes, the presidential electors will vote for that candidate. The elector candidates may have to swear an oath to that effect.
NunA is a racist wack job even among racist wack jobs.
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/EC.jfif
Junk memes are junk.