On May 31, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Arizona ballot access requirements for a party that has been on the ballot for more than two elections to get candidates on its own primary ballot. Arizona Libertarian Party v Hobbs, 17-16491. Here is the decision, which was written by Judge M. Margaret McKeown.
ONE more DISASTER LOSS FOR the LP (AND THUS ALL MINOR PARTIES AND INDEPENDENTS).
1. SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL. BROWN V BD OF ED 1954
— NOT BROUGHT UP IN WILLIAMS V RHODES 1968
— MERE 51 YEARS AGO — NOW LIKE 1,000s OF YEARS AGO.
2. EVERY ELECTION IS NEW.
3. INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES ARE ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICES.
4. EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS TESTS FOR A-L-L SUCH INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES.
5. TOO MANY USELESS MORON LAWYERS AND JUDGES TO COUNT.
6. One more WIN for the statist minority rule gerrymander monarchs/oligarchs.
—
PR AND APPV
Terrible court ruling.
Not too often you have a Nixon appointee on a court. The average age of the panel was 81.
The decision seems to say that it is OK for the Libertarian Party to exclude independents from their primary, yet Arizona may coerce them to include independents as petition signers.
Arizona should have adopted Top 2.
The first two words of the opinion say it all — “Once again.” They demonstrate courts’ irritability over alternative parties’ and candidates’ repeatedly seeking to exercise their constitutional rights. How dare they! “Once again” we must tell them to sit down.
Once again — the same olde BAAAAAD legal arguments result in a once again disaster LOSS —
the definition of legal op INSANITY.
Will this be appealed?
CQ — In general – IF wrong/baaad arguments are in the original case, THEN it is too late to appeal.
IE — MUST have CORRECT arguments in original case.
MUST find a lawyer with SOME *equal* ballot access brain cells —
very difficult to do in this New Age of constitutional law know-it-all MORONS
— trying to split SCOTUS op hairs 1,000s of times.
This might be a good candidate for a cert petition, if the party has the resources. Depending on what was argued in the briefs, which i haven’t read, it seems to me the court erred in applying burdick lax review rather than the anderson balancing test. I would point to crawford v marion county as on point for the standard of review question, although in that case plaintiffs lost anyway. I see the standard as a three category system – burdick, anderson, norman v reed, while some see a two category system, in which plaintiffs must show severe burden to get heightened review. will there be a motion for rehearing en banc? also, given the weakness of the burdick test, it is unclear to me why there were no state constitutional claims raised, if there weren’t.
Generally cannot make state constitutional claims in federal court because of the 11th Amendment. That means going to state court with both the state and federal constitutional claims, which can be risky in terms of the latter.
Ongoing perversion of 11 Amdt vs 14,15,19,26 Amdts
—–
1787 USA Const., Art III, Section 2 — original
The judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, *** between a State and Citizens of another State *** and between a State *** and foreign *** Citizens or Subjects.
—
AMENDMENT XI
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The 11th Amdt OBVIOUSLY only means that the USA courts do NOT have jurisdiction of alleged violations of STATE law by citizens of other States and foreign regimes AGAINST a STATE — as a FICTIONAL artificial corporate public person – property owner (having a govt treasury), contract person, employer, etc.
IE -The citizens of other States and foreign regimes have to go to a State court regarding any such violations of STATE law by such State (if possible).
State/Local officers are NOT a part of such FICTIONAL artificial corporate public person States.
What such State/Local officers do or not do is completely separate from what a FICTIONAL artificial corporate public person State does or does not do.
LAW 101 – ALL acts or omissions do or do not violate the LAW (at a specific time or place) – 4 possibilities.
SCOTUS HACK MORONS have screwed up the 11th Amdt in dozens and dozens and dozens of cases.