In 1912 the Colorado Supreme Court said in Littlejohn v People ex rel Desch, 121 P.159, “Every qualified elector shall have an equal right to cast a ballot for the person of his own selection, and that no act shall be done by any power, civil or military, to prevent it. Such is the mandate and spirit of the Constitution, and it thereby vests in the elector a constitutional right of which he cannot lawfully be deprived by any governmental power.” The decision struck down a ban on write-in voting in School Director elections. The decision was unanimous.
WRITE-INS BANNED IN HOW MANY STATES NOW ??? —
SUBVERSION OF 14-2 AMDT
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trumps-toe-pads-shoe-smells-b2469246.html
TRUMP TOE PADS —- WHICH SENILE MONSTER WILL TIMBER / SLIP AND FALL FIRST ???
COMMIE BIDEN OR FASCIST TRUMP ???
Fascist Biden. Slips and falls all the time.
Good find @ OP!
THE COMMIE ORDER AGAINST TRUMP BALLOT ACCESS MUST NOW BE HELD NULL AND VOID !!!
0
0
P
S
!!!!
https://ebenchbook.org/colorado/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/01/Littlejohn-v.-People.pdf
PAC REP — OPINION
CITED IN LAST 50 YEARS ????
The Colorado court in 2023 is substantially dumbed down from 1912.
Only five states ban all write-in votes.
A few years ago I went to a lecture by one of the SCOCO justices, Melissa Hart, who ruled against Trump being on the GOP primary ballot, while she was still a law professor at the CU Law School. She essentially said that ordinary citizens could not be trusted to interpret the constitution and that only elitists such as herself could. She had run as a Democrat for a CU Board of Regents seat and lost.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/2024-wild-card-banner-third-130000550.html
NBC – 3RD PARTY 2024 CANDS
ZERO MENTION IN 2024 ??? — UNLESS RFKJR / NO LABS ???
COURT OPS —
OLDE HAND WRITTEN — SHORTER OPS
1860S TYPEWRITER — LONG OPS
NOW COMPUTER PASTE — SUPER LONG OPS = MORE JUNK THAN EVER.
IF ACT/OMIT AT TIME/PLACE — THEN LEGAL/ILLEGAL
— NOW MUCH TOO COMPLEX FOR MERE HUMANS — THUS THE TOP RULING CLASS OCCULT HACKS —
ESP IF APPOINTED BY TOP EXEC TYRANTS.
The decision would appear to permit a state to not place the name of an unqualified person on the ballot. In the Colorado decision, the court ruled that failure to file was not disqualifying.
Did Richard Winger mischaracterize the original decision? Jim Riley seems to have a polar opposite takeaway.
It appears that this would only require CO to count write-in votes for Trump in the primary, not be required to place him on the ballot.
Why shouldn’t he be on the ballot when most of us obviously want to vote for him?
Richard:
Which 5 states ban all write-in votes? Also, which other states place restrictions on write-in votes?
The ruling also states “the language under consideration must be construed as constituting a restriction upon the right to vote, and in no sense as affecting the eligibility of one to hold the office.”
Darryl Perry is an insurrectionist who was ineligible to be president when he ran in 2016.
I wonder if his wife knows about how he declared himself a sovereign citizen and a member of the State of Darryl Perry.
@Covid,
Colorado required candidates to file 8 days before a school board election. Two candidates filed then one withdrew. A third candidate decided to run.
It gets murky what happened next. Ballots prepared by election officials had the original candidates but no markings indicating they were official ballots. Other ballots prepared by supporters of the 3rd candidate had his name and the opponent. Both types of ballots were distributed within and outside the polling location.
The lower court declined to count votes for the 3rd candidate saying he was not qualified by virtue of not having filed.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that filing was not a qualification.
Now imagine a person was not qualified (not old enough, etc.). A vote for him is not valid, regardless whether he is on the ballot or a write-in.
It would be reasonable to not print the name of the unqualified candidate and not count any write-in votes.
The vote is valid. Taking office isn’t. Lots of people cast votes for candidates who they know perfectly well won’t win for a variety of reasons – sending a message. Advancing a set of ideas. Building an organization. And so on.
Some people intentionally vote for candidates they know full well aren’t eligible, or are dead, or fictional characters, animals etc for similar reasons.
For all the reasons people vote other than picking the least bad plausible winner, an ineligible candidate is just as good as an eligible one.
If you vote to send the message that you want anarcho capitalism or ecclesiocracy or a return to prehistoric norms or some other fringe view, you either know your candidate won’t win (or at most won’t win above very local, powerless office).
.. or even if you’re that 5% republican on a 95% democrot district or vice versa …the eligibility of your candidate is of little or no difference, since they will not win.
Why then should you be further restricted in your vote to eligible candidates when they won’t be taking office, you know they won’t and that’s not why you vote for them?
Maybe the best spokesman for your party or faction or view is ineligible . Maybe the only one who wants to run is ineligible. So? If you found someone eligible they still wouldn’t be taking office, so what difference does that make?
It’s your vote. You should be able to cast it how you want. Eligible or not. Voting and having your vote counted is one matter. Being allowed to run for office whether you have a chance to win or not is separate but related. Being allowed to assume office is a third. They don’t always coincide and why should they have to ??
Further thoughts.
It’s one thing when everyone or virtually agrees who is eligible.
But when that question is hotly debated, deadlines come into play, and who is on the ballot versus who is allowed to take office assumes additional dimensions
In the case of president tickets, they have VP Candidates and a college of electors for good reasons. They might come into play when questions of eligibility drag on close to or past election day
But wait, that’s not all.
It’s also one of the many reasons I prefer in person, on the record, standing count off vote by party.
There’s no extra time needed to print, mail or count ballots. Everything happens in one evening.
A set of ideas or proposals can participate on as equal as possible a footing in an election even if they don’t have willing and eligible candidates, or say if they have good spokesperson but not willing and able and eligible to serve, or maybe only can serve in some type of office but not others. By making their speech they may even recruit supporters and would be office holders for other office right then and there on election night.
I mean there’s lots of other reasons to do it that way, like accountability and fraud prevention, but really, why do losing parties even need candidates at all to be allowed to address voters on a full range of issues? If they do a good enough job they can become a winning party, maybe over one election, maybe over several.
Without all the paperwork and ballot access and other unnecessary hassles. Address 100% of voters all at once in election hall on election night. See what happens.
Winning party can then pick officeholders.
Either their eligibility can be hashed out after that or they can be substituted. Better yet they should be easy to substitute between elections, it should be about ideas not personality.
Or eligibility to vote and hold office should all be the same and hashed out well ahead of election night, so if your there, no question your eligible to both vote and hold office.
Either way, up until and unless someone wins and is set to take office their eligibility should not matter.
Crap. I need to boil it down. Attention Deficit Dumbocracy and all.
Hmmm. Dunno. Try to find time and read it. But don’t skim. Give honest answer pleas not clever attorney answer?
I, mean I can be glib, but that’s not why I’m here.
Idiocracy. How true or not? Scary true imo