The 10th circuit is likely to hear Yes on Term Limits v Savage in the week of September 22-28, 2008. This is the case that challenges the Oklahoma law that makes it illegal for anyone to circulate an initiative petition, unless that person is a permanent resident of Oklahoma. The case is number 07-6233.
The validity of state laws that make it illegal for out-of-state circulators to work is becoming one of the most important ballot access issues in courts this year. The 9th circuit has an Arizona case pending on the same issue.
Banning people from travelling to a different state to gather petition signatures is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment (and similiar provisions found in every state constitution) and it is also a HUGE impedment to ballot access.
The “top two” initiative in Oregon needs 80,000-plus valid signatures by July to get onto the November ballot. Its backers are shooting for 120,000 signatures in order to be on the safe side.
It’s interesting that, of the 120,000 signatures, they’re only expecting some 20,000 to be gathered by volunteers. The rest will come from paid gatherers, many of whom are presumably non-residents of Oregon.
“It’s interesting that, of the 120,000 signatures, they’re only expecting some 20,000 to be gathered by volunteers. The rest will come from paid gatherers, many of whom are presumably non-residents of Oregon.”
The average person has little time available to go out and gather petition signatures, in addition to this, many people simplely don’t like going through all of the crap that petition signature gatherers go through and many are not very good at collecting signatures. For these reasons it is necessary to hire people to do it.
Each State happens to be a NATION-State.
See U.S.A. Const — Art. VII — ignored by the Supremes since 1789.
Regardless of any earlier MORON Supremes opinion — the entire election process INSIDE each sovereign State is the INTERNAL business of the Electors of such State.
Out- of- State folks can use their 1 Amdt speech – press – assemble – petition rights BUT there are basic limits in the INTERNAL election process of a State.
i.e. How many foreign regime communists or fascists can come to the U.S.A. and petition to get candidates and issues on the ballots of any State ???
“Demo Rep Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Each State happens to be a NATION-State.
See U.S.A. Const — Art. VII — ignored by the Supremes since 1789.
Regardless of any earlier MORON Supremes opinion — the entire election process INSIDE each sovereign State is the INTERNAL business of the Electors of such State.
Out- of- State folks can use their 1 Amdt speech – press – assemble – petition rights BUT there are basic limits in the INTERNAL election process of a State.
i.e. How many foreign regime communists or fascists can come to the U.S.A. and petition to get candidates and issues on the ballots of any State ???”
Prohibiting people who travel to different states from gathering petition signatures VIOLATES free speech provisions that are found in EVERY state constitution.
Americans have a legal right to travel throughout the USA and we do NOT give up our rights once we cross a state line.
Andy #3: You made my point. Professional signature gatherers are obviously much better at the job than volunteers.
My state enacted a law barring out-of-state signature gatherers in 1998, effectively killing the initiative process here. I’m watching the Oklahoma and Arizona cases closely.
Can out- of- State folks magically show up on an election day in such State and magically demand the right to vote in such State (or even be elected or serve on juries, etc.) ??? Duh.
Sorry – in any sovereign regime ONLY the persons directly connected with such regime have any *political* rights in such regime.
Sorry – *political* rights in a regime are NOT the same as *civil* rights — regardless of the MORON Supremes screwing up the point in many, many cases.
“Demo Rep Says:
May 13th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Can out- of- State folks magically show up on an election day in such State and magically demand the right to vote in such State (or even be elected or serve on juries, etc.) ??? Duh.
Sorry – in any sovereign regime ONLY the persons directly connected with such regime have any *political* rights in such regime.
Sorry – *political* rights in a regime are NOT the same as *civil* rights — regardless of the MORON Supremes screwing up the point in many, many cases.”
Asking a person to sign a petition IS NOT THE SAME THING AS VOTING. Asking a person to sign a petition is FREE SPEECH!
Also, depending on the length of a petition drive, a person who travelled in from another state to collect petition signatures could be in that state long enough to be considered to be a resident and to legally vote.
Saying that people can’t travel in from other states and ask people to sign petitions is like saying they can’t even talk about politics at all. If you want to ban people who travelled in from a different state from asking people to sign petitions, how about banning out-of-state comedians from telling jokes about politics? How about banning out-of-state lobbyist? How about banning out-of-state political protestors? How about banning people from different states from giving political speeches? How about banning anyone who travels in from a different state from even discussing politics?
Andy #8: Good points, especially about the out-of-state lobbyists. Also, don’t forget that we’ve allowed non-residents to manage and work in political campaigns for years.
And there seems to be no problem with candidates accepting out-of-state money contributions.
How many States require circulators of candidate / issue petitions going on official ballots be registered Electors in such States — i.e. being a CITIZEN of such State — i.e. a REAL member of the State involved ?
See 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 defining who are the citizens of each State.
Everybody else is a legal visitor (sometimes doing 1st Amdt stuff) or an illegal alien.
Verifying signatures in legal documents (such as a petition) is a notary public type function — one of the highest in the law.
“Demo Rep Says:
May 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
How many States require circulators of candidate / issue petitions going on official ballots be registered Electors in such States — i.e. being a CITIZEN of such State — i.e. a REAL member of the State involved ?
See 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 defining who are the citizens of each State.
Everybody else is a legal visitor (sometimes doing 1st Amdt stuff) or an illegal alien.
Verifying signatures in legal documents (such as a petition) is a notary public type function — one of the highest in the law.”
Requirements that petition circulators be registered voters has been ruled unconstitutional in several cases.
There are several states that don’t require petition signatures to be notarized, and there are several others that don’t even have petition circulator declarations on them.
There is no legitimate reason to have petition signatures notarized. It is nothing more than a ridiculous requirement from the state to add yet another level of difficulty to a petition drive.
Residency requirements for petition circulators is nothing more than an attempt by legislatures to make ballot access more difficult than it already is by limiting the pool of people who can gather petition signatures.
In order to be a registered voter and vote in an election all one has to do is be in a place for 30 days. There are petition drives that last much longer than that.
Hopefully the courts will do the right thing and throw out these absurd, anti-first amendment requirements.
Hmmm. The Supremes just upheld the facial voter I.D. stuff in Indiana — even though it was one more extra level of difficulty in voting.
Constitutional Law 001 — A State can pass ANY law not prohibited by the U.S.A. Const and laws or the State’s Constitution —- i.e. all sorts of absurd and unnecessary State laws are on the books.
Out of State folks can perhaps wear signs saying *Sign petitions for AAAZZZ here* ??? — even if such Out of State folks are NOT Electors, NOT residents and NOT notaries in the State involved.
As I understand it, the courts have said that a state may NOT require petition circulators to be registered voters in that state. A number of states require that circulators be ELIGIBLE to register to vote.
I believe there was a case from Wisconsin in which the court said that petition circulators could not be required to be state residents, and it seems like there was one other similar ruling.
“Demo Rep Says:
May 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Hmmm. The Supremes just upheld the facial voter I.D. stuff in Indiana — even though it was one more extra level of difficulty in voting.
Constitutional Law 001 — A State can pass ANY law not prohibited by the U.S.A. Const and laws or the State’s Constitution —- i.e. all sorts of absurd and unnecessary State laws are on the books.
Out of State folks can perhaps wear signs saying *Sign petitions for AAAZZZ here* ??? — even if such Out of State folks are NOT Electors, NOT residents and NOT notaries in the State involved.”
Banning out-of-state petition circulators violates the US Constitution as well as every state constitution. It is anti-free speech and anti-American.
#13 As usual — the Supremes have armies of MORON lawyers making BAD arguments in front of them.
The party hack Supremes then throw more irrational and illogical stuff into an opinion based on earlier irrational and illogical stuff — result — one more junk opinion compounding the damage.
That is what the Supremes do — since they are party hacks appointed by party hack Prezs and confirmed by the party hacks in the U.S.A. Senate.
#14 See also the pending proof of being an Elector stuff (i.e. birth certificates, etc.) coming to MO and other States — by gerrymander Elephants trying to reduce the number of Donkey voters even more.
What next — DNA tests showing a relation to the 4 July 1776 folks — or even Adam and Eve or Noah of Noah’s Ark ???
Demo Rep #15: There is absolutely no mention in comment #13 of the Supreme Court.
BTW, Demo Rep: What process do you recommend for choosing US Supreme Court justices? I’m sure you have a better concept than the Founding Fathers had.
#16 The UNELECTED oligarchs at the top secret 1787 Federal Convention (aka conspiracy) copied the rotted British monarchial / oligarchial system for choosing judges for the Fed regime.
Democracy —
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
NONPARTISAN nominations and elections of ALL elected executive officers and ALL judges using Approval Voting — vote for 1 or more, highest wins.
Pending MAJOR public education about head to head math.
Difficult only for EVIL monarchs and oligarchs and DUMB People.
How many States manage to survive having ELECTED NONPARTISAN Supreme Courts ???
How many people who would make excellent judges DON’T run because they don’t want to have to raise money and go through a political campaign?
Good politicians don’t always make good judges, and vice versa.
# 18 If a person is SOOOOO excellent to be a judge, then will folks magically support him/her — especially for the U.S.A. Supremes ???
How many PARTY HACKS have been appointed to the Supremes since 1789 — especially starting with Prez Lincoln ???
Party hacks in executive/judicial offices = DESTRUCTION of a Society — sooner or later.
See the party hack ROT destruction of the Roman Republic in 120 B.C. – 27 B.C. — various party hack tyrants and civil wars until Augustus Caesar de facto wiped out the Republic.
The alarm bells are ringing (1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008) — except for BLIND, DEAF and DUMB folks living in Stone Age timebomb regimes.