On August 2, a Connecticut Superior Court denied injunctive relief against the law that requires a candidate running in a primary for U.S. House to collect the signatures of 2% of that party’s registered members in 42 days. Most primary candidates in Connecticut never need to collect signatures, because they can also get on a primary ballot if they show significant support at a party meeting.
The plaintiff, Muad Hrezi, hoped to be on the 2022 Democratic primary ballot for U.S. House in District One. Hrezi v Merrill, Hartford, HHD-cv22-6156703-S. Here is the decision, which is noteworthy for doing a good job of listing precedents that struck down ballot access laws. Often when a judge upholds a law, the opinion neglects to mention the precedents on the other side.
In Connecticut, only parties that polled 20% of the last gubernatorial vote nominate by primary. Smaller ballot-qualified parties nominate by convention.
The plaintiff needed 3,833 valid signatures of Democrats.
How many LOSING ballot access cases since 1968 Williams v Rhodes ???
Under/Over 2,000 ???
THE GOP NEEDS TO FINISH GETTING RID OF THE RHINO’S. GOOD PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE BUT MORE REMAINS TO BE DONE. KEEP THIRD PARTIES UNTIL THAT PROCESS IS OVER JUST IN CASE. THEN GO ALL IN GOP AND TAKE NO PRISONERS.
IMO, if a state pays for a primary for a party, then the state can charge the party a fee for doing so. Then, parties who have primaries ought to charge candidates fees for being on their primary ballot The whole primary system would be paid for in the long run by the candidates who want to run. This would be a much more rational system then the whole convoluted method of ballot access by petitioning.
PUBLIC electors in FACTIONS = parties
PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices.
PUBLIC elections for PUBLIC offices.
SCOTUS – moron stupid about basic stuff.