Tennessee Libertarian Party Files Reply Brief in Ballot Access Case in Sixth Circuit

On December 31, 2024, the Tennessee Libertarian Party filed this Reply brief in Darnell v Hargett, 24-5856, in the Sixth Circuit. This is the case that challenges the Tennessee law on how new parties get on the ballot.


Comments

Tennessee Libertarian Party Files Reply Brief in Ballot Access Case in Sixth Circuit — 12 Comments

  1. https://www.freep.com/story/money/2025/01/02/net-neutrality-rules-struck-down/77412883007/

    Federal appeals court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules. What this means for you.
    Jessica Guynn
    USA TODAY
    A federal appeals court has struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules that prevented internet service providers from throttling or blocking some content or charging more to deliver it.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said Thursday that the FCC lacked the authority to reinstate the Obama-era rules, dealing a final blow to a decade-long effort to gain greater oversight over the internet.

    Long the source of partisan tensions, the net neutrality rules were repealed in Donald Trump’s first term.

    President Joe Biden signed a 2021 executive order encouraging the FCC to reinstate them, which the FCC voted to do along party lines in April.

    TO SCOTUS ???
    MORE MACHINATIONS IN NEW GERRYMANDER CONGRESS / WHITE HOUSE / FCC ???

  2. Did they collect any signatures on a party status petition to show that they were trying to get on the ballot for standing?

  3. There is no need to collect signatures to have standing. There are 3 instances in which the US Supreme Court struck down a law, or remanded it with favorable outcome, when the plaintiff did not collect signatures. (1) The Socialist Labor Party in Ohio in 1968; (2) Gus Hall in California in 1972; Eugene McCarthy in Texas in 1976.

  4. I heard that some attorney they talked to last year (2024) told them that they should collect a few thousand signatures on a party status petition so they could show the judge that they were making an effort to get on the ballot.

  5. Andy, why would they need to? The desired result in this case is the striking down of the ballot access law. Doing so does not immediately benefit any party – it does not put anyone or any party on a ballot. Therefore, anyone has standing. Basically, you don’t need to demonstrate that you are harmed in order to demonstrate that a law is unconstitutional.

    Also, the lead plaintiff died young!

  6. SCOTUS perversions re *standing* —-

    USA VS STATES

    STATES V USA —- REGARDLESS OF ART VII — USA REGIME CREATED BY STATES

    PRIVATE [ESP VOTERS/CANDIDATES] V PUBLIC

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.