Seventh Circuit Won’t Reconsider Indiana Ballot Access Case

On September 23, the Seventh Circuit refused to reconsider its August decision in Indiana Green Party v Morales, 23-2756. The issue was the number of signatures needed for statewide independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties. No such petition had succeeded since 2000, except that in 2024, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s petition had also succeeded.

Indiana is one of only three states in which the Green Party presidential nominee has never appeared on the ballot. The others are Oklahoma and South Dakota.


Comments

Seventh Circuit Won’t Reconsider Indiana Ballot Access Case — 16 Comments

  1. Not shocked, but still quite disappointed. Hoping to see the Green Party on our ballot at some point.

    Proudly voting for Claudia De la Cruz here, as she’s at least a certified write-in option. Hoping that all Stein supporters here follow suit, though Cornel West (also a certified write-in here) may also attract some of them.

  2. Sonski is wrong. Terry is right. Trump has done more for the pro life cause than anyone in US history by nominating the justices who finally got rid of Roe v Wade. It’s a game of momentum regardless of what counterproductive perfectionists misdirection is designed to mislead us to believe. I’m calling foul on their sneak play attempts!

  3. Trump wants to round up all illegals and deport them. Sonski doesn’t. That issue alone is why Trump is the only choice.

  4. Sonski is wrong. Sure, a lot of votes are in states which are not in play. But they cause financial and other campaign resources to be deployed which could be used in the ones that are otherwise, have down ballot impacts , etc etc. It’s all a game of inches and momentum. The momentum shifts back and forth and small shifts open the window for bigger ones in either direction.

    Every vote on every candidate and issue must always be for the marginally more rightward winnable option, even in unwinnable areas. There are no votes anywhere to spare for pie in the sky wishful thinking. The more radical back up options shouldn’t be in the realm of voting and electoral politics. Voting and electoral politics should be reserved strictly for realistic short term marginal moves. They’re not suited for anything else – there are much better way to do all those other things.

  5. “Every vote on every candidate and issue must always be for the marginally more rightward winnable option, even in unwinnable areas.”

    Not when it means voting for something morally reprehensible. Not when it makes the voter complicit in that something.

    Far-left statists like Trump are not entitled to right-wing libertarian votes, and should start thinking very carefully about taking those for granted while doing everything possible to alienate us.

    You can call it “pie in the sky wishful thinking” or “counterproductive perfectionists misdirection” all you like, but I call it integrity.

  6. It’s morally reprehensible to actually facilitate movement in the direction of more and greater evil, which then opens up room for faster, bigger, more rapid moves in the direction of evil, under the facile pretense of integrity. You are then complicit in that greater evil, from Kamala Harris to Khmer Rouge and worse.

    Trump, on the other hand, if successful, opens up room to move further right. It’s a binary choice. Pretending otherwise is in fact evil. I call it pie in the sky wishful thinking and counterproductive perfectionist misdirection because that is exactly what it is, unless of course it’s actual satanic leftist evil masquerading under a false flag, which it sometimes at least is.

    As for libertarians, they are actually left wing, and right wingers would do well to cut all ties. Ethnonationalism, law and order, fair trade and tariffs, closed borders, mass deportation, Church and State, enforcing public order and public decency through the force of law, blood and soil, peace through strength, national greatness conservatism – that’s the authentic right, not libertarian claptrap.

  7. “It’s morally reprehensible to actually facilitate movement in the direction of more and greater evil, which then opens up room for faster, bigger, more rapid moves in the direction of evil, under the facile pretense of integrity. You are then complicit in that greater evil, from Kamala Harris to Khmer Rouge and worse.”

    No, not becoming complicit in one morally reprehensible thing does not and could never make you complicit in another morally reprehensible thing coming to pass. Read your Church fathers or any pre-French Revolution moral or ethical philosopher or theologian.

    “Trump, on the other hand, if successful, opens up room to move further right.”

    Further left, you mean. All he has ever done is move further and further left himself. There is nothing to choose between Trump and Harris: they are two sides of the same coin, two heads on the same hydra. Pretending otherwise is in fact evil.

    “unless of course it’s actual satanic leftist evil masquerading under a false flag”

    Like Trump supporters, you mean?

    “As for libertarians, they are actually left wing, and right wingers would do well to cut all ties. Ethnonationalism, law and order, fair trade and tariffs, closed borders, mass deportation, Church and State, enforcing public order and public decency through the force of law, blood and soil, peace through strength, national greatness conservatism – that’s the authentic right, not libertarian claptrap.”

    Libertarianism is inherently, necessarily and by definition right-wing, just as statism is left-wing. The political spectrum runs from minimum individual liberty on the left to maximum on the right. What you describe as “the authentic right” is a hodge-podge of largely though not entirely, and not always necessarily, leftist perversion.

  8. STATISTS/STATISM = CONTROL FREAK COMMIES/FASCISTS

    LIBERTARIANS = FREE MARKET FREEDOM.

    VERY LIMITED GOVTS TO DEFEND AGAINST CRIMINALS — DOMESTIC/FORN WHO ATTACK SUCH FREE MARKET FREEDOM.

  9. It’s interesting that Oklahoma remains a state where the Green nominee has never appeared on the ballot, now that we’re two cycles in to having the ability to get on by paying a fee. Yes, $35K is a hefty fee, but it’s far cheaper and simpler than a petition effort.

  10. The pols in Indiana changed the number of signatures to get on the ballot from 0.5% to 2% because the American Party kept getting on the ballot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.