On August 23, a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court removed Cornel West and Randall Terry from the presidential ballot, for the same reasons that Claudia De la Cruz had been removed. None of them had a full slate of presidential elector candidates.
However, the Court ruled that the Constitution Party nominees for U.S. Senator, Attorney General, Auditor, and Treasurer should remain on the ballot. The objectors had tried to argue that because they were on the same statewide petition as the presidential nominee, and the presidential nominee had been removed, therefore they also had to be removed.
Here is the decision in the Constitution Party case. In re Nomination Papers of Constitution Party, 382 M.D. 2024.
I just don’t get it. Lancaster, PA is the HQ for the Constitution Party and they have an active state party. They can’t get their act together there and coordinate a slate of electors?
Never want to see a certain third party be on the ballot for president in Pennsylvania? Here’s all you have to do. Go to a few meetings, pretend you are an interested supporter then volunteer to be a presidential elector–you’ll most likely be selected because third parties or independents often are looking for people to serve in this manner. Then when it comes time to submit your candidate affidavit, don’t. Poof. That party won’t be on the ballot for president.
This decision is a disgrace and goes against previous protocol.
And by the way, there were actually 2 decisions. The Constitution’s candidates for President and VP were never accepted to be on the ballot by the Bureau of Elections due to the missing candidate affidavits for its presidential electors. The party filed suit in commonwealth court to reverse that decision and it was denied. I sent Richard the decision.
The decision that’s posted here is for the remainder of the Constitution party statewide candidates who were permitted to stay on the ballot as the presidential elector problem did not apply to them and the judge rejected the all or nothing argument.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/08/justices-allow-arizona-to-enforce-proof-of-citizenship-law-for-2024-voter-registration/
SB ON AZ — CITIZEN PROOF MACHINATION
You know… Democrats seem to like ticking off every non-Kamala voter. I don’t think this is going to help her chances. A lot of these people will vote for Trump to spite the people who removed their favored candidate from the ballot.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tv-ratings-democratic-convention-closes-212526724.html
COMMIE DONKEY CONV – NIGHT 4 TV RATINGS
ON TO ZILLION POLLS PER SECOND
A-N-Y POLL TO MENTION THE MINORITY RULE MATH OF THE GERRYMANDER USA REGIME – USA REPS / USA SENS / USA EC [PREZ/VP] ???
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/23/who-is-kamala-harris-father-donald-harris-absent-from-dnc/74915850007/
DADA HARRIS –
MARXIST ECON PROF — MISSING IN ACTION FROM COMMIE DONKEY CONV
Shouldn’t all of the presidential elector paperwork be collected by party officials or the candidate’s campaign team well in advance of the deadline to avoid situations like this from happening?
What is going on with the American Solidarity Party in Pennsylvania?
Why would anyone with a triple digit iq vote for anyone except Kamala Harris and the Coach and the rest of the Democratic nominees? It makes no sense. Only morons can vote for other candidates.
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/opinion/cartoons/2024/08/20/2024-democratic-national-convention-in-cartoons/74880404007/
CARTOONS FRONT
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/08/23/robert-f-kennedy-rfk-jr-suspends-presidential-campaign-endorses-trump-michigan-ballot-natural-law/74923208007/
MICH — RFKJR WILL BE ON NOV BALLOTS
TOO LATE TO WITHDRAW
SAME IN HOW MANY OTHER MARGINAL STATES ???
—-
ONLY SUB 100 IQ FOLKS LOVE TO VOTE FOR COMMUNIST LOOTERS ???
GOVT SINCE 1933 – GET $$$ L-O-O-T [AKA ***BENEFITS***
—- CLAIMED ***RIGHTS*** — FOOD / CLOTHING / SHELTER / MEDS / ETC] FROM GOVTS
— VIA TAXES ON TAX SLAVES AND MORE BORROWING FROM MORON LENDERS
— RESULT NOW ABOUT $ 50 TRILLION IN ALL GOVTS DEBTS IN USA – USA/STATES/LOCALS
NONSTOP INFLATION SINCE 1933 — DOLLAR READY TO CRASH TO ZERO ANY COMPUTER SECOND.
@Richard Schwarz,
Does Pennsylvania put 19 blank lines on presidential ballots for write-ins for presidential elector (i.e., that is what statute says, but do they follow that in practice?). If so different electors may get different numbers of popular votes, and the Top 19 would be appointed.
Pennsylvania statute says that electors affiliated with a presidential candidate receive the same number of popular votes. It does not mean that there must be 19 nominees. It might be tactically unwise for the Democrats or Republicans (or any other party) to name fewer than 19 electors, but it would not be illegal.
Are the Certificates of Ascertainment for Pennsylvania available in SOC archives? Have past certificates shown fewer than the allotted number of electors for any candidate?
LOL @ AZ screaming nonsense.
@Richard Schwarz
Your first comment hits the nail on the head. I couldn’t agree more. This is an about-face from the way Pennsylvania seems to have been doing things for years now. Decades even. It is indeed disgraceful, and it sets a very dangerous precedent.
@Thecommander Jeff
If they plan on “winning” the election by mass fraud again – even if that might lead to civil war as some on BAN have suggested – they likely don’t even care who all vote for Trump.
Pennsylvania in the past published a booklet each time the electors voted. The booklet contains the names of all the presidential electors and I have the 1952, 1956 and 1960 copies. It shows the Socialist Labor Party and the Socialist Workers Party never had full slates. In fact the SWP would typically have just one presidential elector candidate.
The National Archives website has certificates of ascertainment on-line for Pennsylvania only for the last 3 presidential elections. All parties had full slates in those three elections. I think it is very likely if we could see the 1964-2008 lists we would see other examples of parties on with less than full slates.
@RW,
The requirement that the governor of a state send a certificate of ascertainment has been in federal law since at least 1948 when Title 3 was codified in the US Code. It is likely much older, perhaps part of the reforms after the 1876 election. 3 USC 6 only requires the certificate to be retained for one year but it would be quite surprising if older versions had been trashed. Since the certificate is from the governor and includes the state seal, it would be extremely unlikely that the Secretary of the Commonwealth did not have copies. It was probably the SOC who published the booklets you have.
Pennsylvania statute requires that there be one write-in line for each elector position (19 currently). If I read the statute correctly a voter can not vote for a presidential candidate AND write-in vote for electors, but there is nothing that would prevent a voter from voting for electors of different slates, or no slate at all. Clearly Pennsylvania would appoint the Top 19. If Terry were to receive the most popular voters in Pennsylvania (possible, albeit unlikely), his 15 electors would be appointed along with four electors for the second place finisher (if Terry were to finish first, De La Cruz would likely be second).
The idea that just because things were done a certain way in the past, the new way must be worse or wrong somehow, is dangerous and stupid. It precludes the very possibility of progress, betterment, and advancement of any kind.
The idea that just because things can be done differently, they should be, and change is necessarily good, is even more dangerous and stupid.
“Progress” means “going forward; moving onward”, not “improving” as self-proclaimed “progressives” erroneously believe. In practice, almost all “progress” is actually “regress” in their understanding of the word, i.e. out of the frying pan into the fire.
But in this case, the biggest issue isn’t even necessarily Pennsylvania changing its interpretation, but enforcing that new interpretation after not having bothered to inform anyone that they had changed it.
No one said change is always necessarily good. Betterment or advancement is logically impossible without change. If you go back far enough, for example, organisms can’t be multicellular (“we’ve always done it this way”) etc. Of course many changes are dangerous and stupid, but you vastly overstate what portion. Even if you were correct. My general point would still stand.
Nothing about my general point was necessarily related solely to politics.
Most mutations aren’t beneficial, but without those which are, evolution doesn’t occur. Whether biology, politics, or any other field, it’s a general point that can’t be logically refuted.
And furthermore, you know it, and anyone with any sense knows you do.