U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Indiana Primary Ballot Access Case

Posted on by October 7, 2024

On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Rust v Morales, 23-1369. This is an Indiana case filed by a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, against a law that barred him from the primary ballot law. The law said he couldn’t be on because he hadn’t voted in recent Republican primaries.

Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Indiana Primary Ballot Access Case — 18 Comments

  1. The question of whether or not a candidate may run in a party’s primary should be up to the party, and not imposed by state law.

    Even if a partisan primary is paid for by the state, a state shouldn’t compel a party to put certain candidates on its primary ballot, BUT if a party DOES keep a candidate off a state-paid primary, that candidate should retain the right to run in the general election without a partisan label.

  8. The people who pay dues, literally and figuratively, make a party, like any club or membership organization of any kind – church, charity, corporation, anything.

  10. Sure, parties use government ballots, just like other private organizations use government mail, government roads, government libraries etc.

  11. @WZ,

    Who defined the party?

    @Answer Man,

    Should churches, charities, corporations, softball teams, garden clubs be able to publish their endorsements on the ballot?

    No, of course not.

    Why should political organizations?

  12. Because ballots pertaining to politics and the rest of those don’t. Ballots should be taken out of the hands of government and returned to private printing or better yet viva voce ideally, but just because government stole and monopolized ballot printing and distribution doesn’t give them the right to then also steal party member work and sweat blood tears and capital and human capital etc as expressed through party name implying association.

    It also doesn’t give them the right to censor candidate party association. That’s taking things in the wrong direction, it would be better to print parties with no candidates than vice versa.

  13. POLITICAL PARTIES = FACTIONS OF ALL PUBLIC ELECTORS/VOTERS

    PUBLIC NOMINATIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICES VIA PUBLIC LAWS

    SCOTUS — BRAIN DEAD ABOUT ELECTION LAW BASICS – SINCE 1868 14 AMDT-1870 15 AMDT — 1888-1890 OFFICIAL PRIMARIES
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  14. “Should churches, charities, corporations, softball teams, garden clubs be able to publish their endorsements on the ballot?

    No, of course not.”

    Hey now, let’s not be hasty! Just imagine how long we could make the ballots if we included not only every organization but every person in the country (if not the world) that endorsed a candidate.

    Seriously though, if we are going to have a representative “democracy” rather than a real one, either do away with party labels entirely – or better yet with parties as anything more than (super)PACs – or allow every candidate to use the party label of any party they are a member of. Those are the only consistent options.

  15. NUNA–

    LIMITED ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOTS ???

    CAND AB – ENDORSED BY – CLOWNS WALKING BACKWARDS ON THEIR HANDS ASSN

  16. I’d take their endorsement more seriously than that of the GOP at this point 🤡🤸

  17. @Nuña,

    John Rust was barred from running for the US Senate from Indiana as a Republican because the party chair in his home county had refused to grant a dispensation. But for that, Republican voters in Indiana could have chosen their nominee in the primary.

  18. The only consistent option is to not further tilt the playing field towards the establishment factions of the uniparty by either censoring party identification or turning the names meaningless by taking freedom of dissociation away from parties

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.