On September 23, U.S. District Court Judge Leigh Martin May, an Obama appointee, upheld the Georgia petition requirement for U.S. House, for independent candidates and the nominees of parties that didn’t poll as much as 20% for president in the entire U.S., or for Governor of Georgia. Cowen v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:17cv-4660.
The decision is only fifteen pages, and the first nine pages are simply a recitation of the history of the case and a description of the existing law, which is so severe, no minor party candidate has ever used it (since it was created in 1943), and no independent has used it since 1964.
The basis for the decision is simply that the law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 in Jenness v Fortson, and also by the Eleventh Circuit in several cases since. It concludes, “Thus, while Plaintiffs present a robust record and some compelling arguments, the Court cannot ignore the fact that similar challenges to the Georgia Election Code have been rejected by higher courts. The Court is bound by the clear rulings of both the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court.”
The decision does not mention that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice said that laws that are seldom used are probably unconstitutional. The decision also does not mention that two U.S. Supreme Court decisions say states can’t require more signatures for office in just part of the state, than for statewide office. Since 2016, Georgia has only required 7,500 signatures for president, but approximately 20,000 for U.S. House. That characteristic of Georgia law did not exist when those earlier unfavorable precedents were issued.
Wow. This is an outrage. The petitioning requirement for minor party and independent candidates for us House in Georgia is the most difficult in the country, and is so hard that nobody has successfully completed it since the 1960’s.
USELESS INCOMPETENT hair-splitting *lawyer* MORONS doing ballot access cases since 1968.
Same olde losing arguments – expecting different results = definition of lawyer INSANITY.
********Equal******** still in 14-1 — regardless of ALL **lawyer** MORONS.
Demo Rep once had his own pro se ballot access constitutional lawsuits, and they didn’t win.
Why are you telling us this, Richard?
Because it’s not fair to our hard-working and dedicated ballot access attorneys for him to blame them for losing, when he himself also lost his ballot access lawsuits.
Then WHO is to blame for the now MANY – MANY – MANY losing ballot access cases since 1968 ???
—-
1. Separate is NOT equal – Brown v Bd of Ed 1954
2. Each election is NEW.
3. EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates for the same office in the same area.
—-
The so-called winning ballot access cases are ALL *UN-principled* / UN-equal — starting with 1968 Williams v Rhodes — 51 years of LAWLESS court ops.
See the mere 96 years of UN-CON stuff regarding any so-called **federal common law** ended with the 1938 Erie RR op in SCOTUS — same mental ROT in the ENTIRE ballot access series of ops.
On to the next LOSING case ??? — as if the latest GA case is not enough a Titanic type disaster.
The idea that each election is new is a sound concept, but for some reason, from the very beginnings of U.S. ballot access laws in the 1890’s, that concept was not followed. Unlike the laws of Great Britain and Canada, the earliest U.S. ballot access laws instead accept the concept that a party that performed well in the previous election should automatically have its nominees on the ballot for the next election. But new parties, and parties that had not done well in the last election, had to carry out certain tasks (such as petitioning) to be on the ballot.
It is not the fault of any living attorney that this tradition developed in the U.S. in the 1890’s. As far as I know, there are very few countries that put that idea into their election law.
This is all very confusing. Demo Rep is confusing enough all by himself but to be given any credence by the author of this blog is… well,,, nearly Biblical! Perhaps we ARE in the end times!
https://constitution.congress.gov/conan/appendix/decisions-overruled/
SCOTUS hacks over-ruling earlier SCOTUS hacks —
Un-fortunately does NOT show mini-subject matter involved.
A number of 100 plus years cases.
—-
A FEW election law cases
Moore v. Ogilvie,
394 U.S. 814 (1969) 1969
MacDougall v. Green,
335 U.S. 281 (1948) 1948
—
Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections,
383 U.S. 663 (1966) 1966
Breedlove v. Suttles,
302 U.S. 277 (1937) 1937
—
Wesberry v. Sanders,
376 U.S. 1 (1964) 1964
Colegrove v. Green,
328 U.S. 549 (1946) 1946 — date typo error
—
United States v. Raines,
362 U.S. 17 (1960) 1960
United States v. Reese,
92 U.S. 214 (1876) 1876
—
Smith v. Allwright,
321 U.S. 649 (1944) 1944
Grovey v. Townsend,
295 U.S. 45 (1935) 1935
Can you list which specific cases DemoRep lost?
RW noted – ***but for some reason***
Obvious Reason – the populist, progressive and prohibition parties became direct threats to the D+R gang bosses after 1888.
———
How many black civil rights *equal* protection losers from 1896 to 1954 ???
———
In the above –
1969 Moore v. Ogilvie UN-fortunately came AFTER 1968 Williams.
——–
In freedom results –
Israel voters just had another PR election –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2019_Israeli_legislative_election
near bottom
9 parties won seats – mere 97.18 Pct of all valid votes elected a Member
[USA – about 60-62 pct win in standard gerrymander regimes]
11 new parties- none won seats
14 old members out – of 120
BUT – FATAL Parl system in Israel – same super-partisan hacks having both legis and exec powers.
USA – stuck in ANTI-Democracy gerrymander / ballot access DARK AGE.
UK Sup Ct ruled the PM Hack machination to suspend the UK Parl was illegal.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
So much for one more monarch *prerogative* — in the 1066 DARK Age regime having NO written Const.
The Parl meets today – certain chaos — possible revolution — UK Republic forces on the march ???
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons
25 Sep 2019
Speaker’s Statement
AG ravings
LUCAS comment — NO written UK Const
Will the UK become 1 or more States in the USA ??? Stay tuned.
Demo Rep filed cases against Michigan for having no procedures for independent candidates to get on the ballot. This was in the days before 1974, the year that the US Supreme Court said states must have procedures both for independent candidates and new or previously unqualified parties. So he was right when he filed the cases, but he lost because the lower courts wouldn’t realize he was right. He was proved right in 1974 in the US Supreme Court decision Storer v Brown.
Can you give us case names? Or citations?
I can’t name his cases without revealing his name, and I don’t think he wants me to reveal his name. Maybe he will mention his own cases in a new comment.
Since DR is no longer in a RED communist death zone, RW can release the case names.
Basically the cases are like the black civil rights cases in the 1896-1954 DARK AGE void.
Do some Shepardize updates – esp in 6 Circuit.
The EVIL subversion of 14-1 continues due to the 1971 GA Fortson op – recycled a few days ago again in GA.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-09-25/debates/F3541B98-D4E9-487F-BE17-D51C6EF870F2/LegalAdviceProrogation
UK HC — Prog machinations – day after UK Sup Ct op
about 90 pct down page —
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
While yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding parliamentary sovereignty was extremely welcome, it should never have come to this. Our centuries-old unwritten constitution, based on gentlemen’s agreements, is not fit for purpose when dangerous populists are in office. Will the Attorney General therefore consider urgent proposals for a written constitution, developed with real citizens’ engagement, since our democracy belongs to all of us, not just those who think they are above the law?
The Attorney General
I have a degree of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says. I think that, as we depart the European Union, there is ground for thinking again about our constitutional arrangements and how they should be ordered. I think that, in doing so, a widespread public consultation of the kind that she is describing would be essential, because any new constitutional arrangements would have to be sanctioned by the widest possible public support and assent, so I do have some sympathy. No doubt over the coming months and years, this will be a subject of important concern to the House.
—-
Centuries overdue — in the 1066 DARK AGE regime having NO written const.
The two cases I know about are Jones v Hare, 440 F.2d 685 (6th circuit 1971) and Jones v Branigan, 433 F 2d 576 (6th circuit 1970).
Jones v Hare, 440 F.2d 685 (6th circuit 1971)
https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-hare
olde 6 Cir party hacks at work
https://casetext.com/case/goldman-frankie-v-austin?ct_exp_group_COLD_DOCUMENT_LAND=SIMPLIFIED_DOCUMENT_PAGE&PRICING_PAGE_GROUP=S&ct_spg=c&PDF_DOWNLOAD_GROUP=P&PDF_DOWNLOAD_LANDING_PAGE_GROUP=P&NEW_LEARN_MORE=P&sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=
Somewhat different olde 6 Cir hacks —
near bottom
Goldman-Frankie v. Austin
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Feb 15, 1984 727 F.2d 603 (6th Cir. 1984)
The defendants’ argument that the lower court and this court are bound by Jones v. Hare, 440 F.2d 685 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, 404 U.S. 911, 92 S.Ct. 237, 30 L.Ed.2d 184 (1971), is not convincing. In Jones, this Court rejected a broad attack on Michigan’s election laws and constitutional provisions including Art. VIII § 3. The Court found the “nominal formation of a so-called `political party'” a reasonable requirement for gaining access to the ballot. Id., at 686. As the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Storer v. Brown and its progeny make clear, Jones v. Hare has been overruled.
—
took mere 13 years.
—-
The UNEQUAL ROT continues.
Circa 1988 – The Mich gerrymander hacks passed an UNEQUAL ballot access law for independents for partisan offices.
See the Gravelines Mich AG candidate ballot access case
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/27/judge-order-graveline-michigan-attorney-general-petition/1110409002/
He got on 2018 Nov ballots –
caused yet another under 50 pct – minority rule winner – current Mich AG Nessel [Red Donkey]
—
IE Mich continues in the FRONT lines for EQUAL ballot access and ending minority rule gerrymanders.
Sep 2018 — mere year plus ago —
Chris Graveline Wins Ballot Access Case in Sixth Circuit
http://ballot-access.org/2018/09/06/chris-graveline-wins-ballot-access-in-sixth-circuit/