On April 10, Kansas House Bill 2056 went into effect. Governor Laura Kelly declined to sign it, but she let it become law without her signature. It requires minor party nominees (who are nominated in convention) to submit notarized declarations of candidacy. It also makes it clear that Kansas does not allow two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. That was already policy but it is now more explicit. Thanks to Eric Lund for this news.
Makes sense.
I’m glad they cleared that up.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k410w11r3o
UK–
Reform Party wins
A nominated candidate must file an **acceptance of nomination**. A person may be nominated without being present at the convention, or even knowing that they might be nominated. A gentleman or lady would not seek office, but might accept a nomination.
This was probably formalized so that a nominated candidate must make an affirmative act of candidacy, and for the purpose of the bill to prevent accepting more than one nomination.
I don’t know why Richard Winger thinks that notarization of an official action is remarkable.
If parties could not nominate, this would not be an issue.
I don’t think we’re on Kansas anymore.
I’m with Jim Riley on this. Parties shouldn’t have to nominate candidates. The winning party can just choose officeholders.
Sec. 2. (1) All elected officers shall be registered Electors [in addition to any other qualifications in this constitution].
(2) A person may hold 1 elected or appointed office in a time of peace.
(3) All incumbents and all other candidates shall respectively file a Declaration of Candidacy by [5] P.M. [203] and [196] days before the election day.
part of model state const
Kanga Roo is correct.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2025/05/02/gabriela-santiago-romero-detroit-city-countil-primary-ballot/83351641007/
LOCAL OFFICE – BALLOT ACCESS MACHINATIONS
@Jim
I’d rather see the voters being able to vote for anyone, and then only requiring consent from the winner of the election (after the votes are counted).
Nomination implies selection of you by others, not selection of you by yourself.
Winning party picking officeholders is the way to go for sure.
Under standing count everyone selects themselves.
@PF,
Why have multiple officeholders?
What if there are factional disputes in a party? Who exactly is in charge of the party. Wouldn’t it be better to select the Supreme Party Leader. But wouldn’t the officeholder(s) be puppets of the Supreme Party Leader? It would be better to select the One Supreme Leader directly.
Multiple officials because one is unlikely to fill all government functions. How parties select officeholders should be their business, including if they want to pick one person to make all selections. If there are faction differences they figure them out or become separate parties at the next election.
@PF,
Why do they have to be elective offices?
Imagine being at a mass meeting to choose the largest party, and someone is arguing on behalf of the Rhino Party, and someone else says they are just a bunch of RhINOs (Rhino in Name Only). How does anyone know which Rhino faction is being chosen to make the selection of officers. Presumably the Chair of the mass meeting will have to make out a certificate to the Party Chair but who to deliver it to?
What do you know about Michael Whatley and Ken Martin?
The parties would be based on who’s in them. It doesn’t really matter what they call themselves, if anything.
What would be the point of a certificate? Everyone at the meeting will see for themselves who had the biggest numbers.
jr asked
Why have multiple officeholders?
—-
to lessen odds for getting tyrants
see Hitler takeover of nazi party circa 1921
Jim Riley always likes to make simple things complicated. They don’t have to be complicated.
Even Hitler had multiple officeholders, even though he was dictator for life.
Stan simplifies the process. We should listen to him.
AZ is obviously a genius.
@PF, Q,
Do you envision that all the voters in Kansas would gather for one mass meeting?
When would the “political party” select the officeholders.
No. Voters would each gather at their local precinct. The officeholders would be selected by the winning party as soon as they win before they head on home.
Until multiprecinct offices can be eliminated, the precincts would each select representative officeholders (to elections for higher levels) to travel to regional meetings of the next level up, and so on. At each level, the winning party would select its officeholders, including representatives and alternates to the next higher level , at the conclusion of each meeting.
In addition to making simple things complicated, Jim Riley likes to ask the same questions he asked and which were previously answered by the same person or other people over and over.
@PF,
How is it complicated to have 6 billion persons over the age of 14 gather and choose 1 Supreme Leader?
@PF,
Is Governor of Kansas a “multiprecinct office”? When do you foresee it being eliminated?
Jim Riley, please stick to the front page. I don’t plan to check back here.
Your first question is patently absurd. I won’t entertain it.
The answer to your second question should be obvious. Governor of Kansas is a multiprecinct office. There are many voting locations in Kansas and the larger ones should be broken up. Governor is perhaps 3rd or 4th level.
Start from the top and work down – eliminate any hint of international government, then the federal government, then state governments, and lastly anything between that and the local gathering place.
Approach human scale – small towns, rural low population counties, urban neighborhoods. One size does not fit all.
I foresee it being eliminated, probably sooner than you think plausible, but I don’t know when. My best guess is in 10 to 100 years give or take an additional order of magnitude. Any more tight of a guess is an absurd crapshoot in the dark, but let’s say 25 years. I’m not Nostradamus, Kreskin , or a time traveller.
You are trying to nail down a lot of specifics which will get worked out by trial and error and different parts tried out in different places along a general direction in response to and in conjunction with other things happening outside of politics. There is no central plan for freedom and there isn’t going to be no matter how many times and different ways you ask.
It will work itself out, hopefully and most likely in the general direction I am suggesting . I can’t say when or exactly how or in what order of things – and neither can anyone else. If anyone was that perfect, central planning would work. It doesn’t, can’t, and won’t .
Wrong! Trump IS THAT PERFECT because TRUMP IS GOD! Central planning will work perfectly under Trump. He will own everything and He will run everything! And best of all HE HAS ALREADY BEEN ELECTED, so it’s just like He told us – we DON’T EVER NEED TO VOTE AGAIN !!!
@PF,
It is not clear whether you believe that the dissolution of Kansas is desirable or merely inevitable. If it is desirable, how does implementing your scheme hasten the demise of Kansas? If it is inevitable, how does implementing your scheme now, prepare for a post-Kansas dystopia?
It seems pretty clear to me, and why are you asking someone questions who already said they won’t be back to look at them? I’m not going to be going down your rabbit holes either.