On October 5, this Reply Brief was filed in Hendrix v Howe, 1:23cv-185. This is the case over North Dakota’s ban on out-of-state circulators. All briefs have now been filed, on the issue of whether the ban should be enjoined.
On October 5, this Reply Brief was filed in Hendrix v Howe, 1:23cv-185. This is the case over North Dakota’s ban on out-of-state circulators. All briefs have now been filed, on the issue of whether the ban should be enjoined.
EACH STATE IS A NATION-STATE FOR INTERNAL POLITICS – STATE/LOCAL OFFICE/ISSUE ELECTIONS
NON-STATE FOLKS — NONE OF YOUR BIZ
1 AMDT PETITION FOR GRIEVANCES — NOT BALLOT ACCESS PETITIONS.
MORON SCOTUS IN 1968 WILLIAMS V RHODES
AZ IS THE MORON, AND A TOTAL HYPOCRITE ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY.
States cannot ban interstate commerce. States cannot ban activity on the basis of state origin.
Are elections supposed to be commerce?
If only AZ has read this 1928 US War Pamphlet explaining the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
You can look at https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvdem.htm
INTERSTATE COMM CL —
ALLOWS CONGRESS TO STOP/REDUCE STATE M BURDENS ON COMMERCE MOVING FROM STATE A TO STATE Z.
– ESP STATE M TAXES ON SUCH A TO Z COMMERCE.
MULTIPLE PARAS IN 1787-1788 FEDERALIST.
SCOTUS MORONS PERVERSION RE *DORMANT* IC CL IN 1870S —–
STATES DE FACTO DEAD RE PRODUCTION / CONSUMPTION OF COMMERCE SINCE 1930S — FDR SCOTUS HACKS.
Richard
I am curious as to the reasons why the ban was put into place and do you have evidence to say that these reasons are totally silly-billy?
AZ is too ztupid to read anything except fake news.
Why would out of state petition/name gatherers for ballot access and/or referendum access would be a conflict? If its to be bigoted against fair access to the ballot than I could see why.
Out-of-state petition circulator bans are put in place to make it more difficult to get on the ballot. American citizens do not give up their rights when they enter another state. Out-of-state petition circulator bans have been ruled unconstitutional in multiple states where they have been challenged. I am surprised it took someone from North Dakota as long as it has to challenge this law there. Note that in ND the law only applies to ballot initiative and referendum petitions.
Out-of-state people are not banned from working as GOTV (Get Out The Vote) canvassers, campaign staff, political sign makers, or as political news reporters or commentators. Singling out petition circulators and banning them from working in a state where they do not regularly reside is clearly discriminatory and is meant to hinder ballot access.
Any idea how long it will take to get a decision in this case?
HOW MANY PUTIN / XI KILLERS WORKING ON BALLOT ACCESS PETITIONS IN THE 50 STATES ???
Occams razor says zero, like AZ IQ.
@BDLU,
Signing a petition is somewhat akin to voting.
Perhaps circulators could have a sign indicating whether or not they had signed the petition.
Signing is akin to voting. Circulating is not. An unattended table can circulate a petition. AZ has irrationally advocated using junk mail, newspaper inserts and other such methods to circulate petitions as if no one ever thought of or tried it. Mail and newspapers can cross state lines. There’s no requirement that newspaper delivery be done by US Citizens, over 18, citizens of that state, etc.
ONE PERSON PETITIONS.
THE SIGNERS ARE ELECTORS OF THE ELECTION AREA INVOLVED.
NOOO *CIRCULATORS* NEEDED.
WRONG. ONE PERSON PETITIONS DON’T CUT DOWN ON FRAUD. ALL THEY DO IS WASTE PAPER. CIRCULATORS ARE NEEDED BECAUSE WHAT YOU SUGGEST HAS BEEN TRIED MANY TIMES AND PROVEN NOT TO WORK. YOU ARE A MORON.
@CKF,
What if a circulator collects signatures from persons not eligible to vote?
Is that like election clerks letting ineligible voters voting?
No. Signatures still have to be certified. It’s more like letting an ineligible voter cast a provisional vote which is later discarded.
@CKF,
That is why it is better to have qualification by personal appearance.
For initiatives?