In recent years a new obstacle has risen to litigation over ballot access: the pernicious principle known as the “Purcell Principle” that says courts should not alter ballots too close to an election. In 2022, a U.S. District Court Judge in Florida refused to put the People’s Party candidate for Pasco County Commission on the ballot, partly because “plaintiffs cannot overcome Purcell”. The People’s Party had filed its ballot access lawsuit on June 3, for an election in November, and yet the judge felt the Purcell Principle meant the case had been filed too late.
In 2023, a New Haven Superior Court in Connecticut kept Shafiq Abdussabur, a candidate for Mayor of New Haven, off the Democratic primary ballot, even though he had enough signatures, because the evidence that he had enough signatures had not been presented until August 16, and the primary was on September 12. Abdussabur v Evans, NY-cv–23-6135336. The court ruling against Abdussabur was made on August 23, and the ballots had not yet been printed on that day, except for some absentee ballots.
Yet the Colorado Supreme Court has now decided to remove Donald Trump from the March 5, 2024 ballot, and has said nothing about the Purcell Principle. If the Purcell Principle applies to potential court decisions that put a candidate on the ballot, logically it should apply to court decisions that remove a candidate from a ballot.
If the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Colorado State Court, that should set a powerful precedent that the Purcell Principle does not apply to adding or subtracting candidates from a ballot.
The origin of the Purcell Principle was a U.S. Supreme Court order in Purcell v Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the issue was whether the Ninth Circuit should have enjoined an Arizona law concerning photo ID on October 5, only a month before the November election.
Purcell was about showing voter ID at the polling place. The polls were most likely open on only one day (Election Tuesday). It was a matter of in-person voter conduct, and in-person election official conduct. I don’t believe it affected absentee voting. How this is construed to relate to ballot access is beyond me.
But I can understand the idea of not wanting to add/remove someone from the ballot after absentee voting has already started – like the Abdussabur case.
The Colorado (red communist) kangaroo court is clearly prejudiced and outcome driven, willing and able to find whatever specious reasoning fits their desired outcome. At least for 4 out of the 7, all 7 being demon rat appointees.
It’s probably too much to ask, but your previous article says their combined opinion has 132 pages of majority opinion and 25 pages of dissent. When I attempted to download what I guess must be the combination of those on my phone, a rather outdated Android and the only internet device I now own, it claimed to be 213 pages.
Is the 25 page dissent available by itself without downloading the rest anywhere? Could it be made available thus here, if not available elsewhere? Out of curiosity for anyone with the available free space to keep and examine such downloads, what is the balance of the 213 pages besides 132 majority and 25 dissent, or are those numbers inaccurate?
Should commie judges who vote in a hare brained manner, like the majority of the commie-fascist demon rat Colorado red supreme court, be considered absentee voters, given the obvious absence of neural synaptic activity or connection on their part ?
PURCELL– ONE MORE UNCONST OP BY SCOTUS HACKS
IF ELECTION IS ILLEGAL– THEN AUTOMATIC STOP IT OR IF ILLEGAL ELECTION HAPPENS, THEN AUTOMATIC REDO IT.
HAVE ELECTIONS — ONE OF THE VERY FEW THINGS THAT USA/STATE GOVTS MUST DO.
AT LEAST SOMETHING LEARNED IN 1775-1789 FROM OLDE ROTTED TYRANTS IN OLDE ENGLAND–
BUT TOO DIFFICULT FOR SCOTUS HACKS TO UNDERSTAND.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
It’s probably too late at this point to redo the corrupted 2020 election.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/shock-illegal-alien-given-immigration-appointment-in-2031/
Another reason we need Trump back in office.
Amen, Bob!
I’m glad someone is linking real news here, unlike the troll moron which is always linking fake news.
CORVETTE –
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=140313
HAS LINK TO CO SCT OP
I’m looking for just the dissent as a standalone document. Better yet would be if I could read it without downloading anything else on my phone, which is bursting at the seams and creaking under the weight as it is.