On March 23, the Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously put Cynthia Burbank back on the Democratic primary ballot for U.S. Senate. The Secretary of State had removed her because he felt she was not a “bona fide” candidate, because she had openly said if she wins the Democratic nomination, she will withdraw in favor of a strong independent candidate, Dan Osborne.
Here is the decision in Burbank v Evnen, 321 Neb 55.
Restore Britain’s membership is now bigger than the Tories. Still not worth a blog post as far as Richard Winger is concerned.
20 March 2026, Lowe said that the party had been registered with the Electoral Commission to run candidates in Great Britain.
Lowe officially joined Restore Britian as a member of the House of Commons
Official confirmation
https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP18382
Commie dropping out for another commie
https://x.com/RestoreBritain_/status/2036073768028709160
“Restore Britain officially has our first Member of Parliament.
Rupert will not be the last.”
“Independent”
Yes, it is state authorities not voters who determine which person are “bona fide” for a candidate license to receive votes.
Censored ballots are fascist propaganda.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. – The Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution Section 1.
Ballots in the United States are administrated as a government monopoly in every state. The state controls the content of the ballot under secret ballot laws. Election laws control which persons are allowed to vote and which persons voters may choose to vote for. Secret ballot laws are a system of licensing for voters and potential candidates. Voters must be approved to access the state ballot and candidates must be approved to receive votes.
These state political monopolies did not exist until the enactment of secret ballot laws in the 1890s. Before the secret ballot monopolies were established voter eligibility was regulated and licensed voters were able to make and publish their own ballots to vote for any candidates they choose. The state was required to count all persons who received votes and all ballots were effectively write-in ballots since the voter had the ability to edit the ballot with any names they wanted.
This meant that the ballot was a form of private property like a book manuscript. The secret ballot laws confiscated this private property right to institute a system of censorship of voters.
State incumbent politicians claim that enacting candidate ballot access requirements is to prevent ballot overcrowding, voter confusion, election fraud, and to facilitate election administration.
What is typically ignored is that casting a secret or anonymous ballot does not necessitate censorship of ballot content. A ballot with write-in candidates’ names can be anonymous.Sstates enact ballot access requirements to prevent ballot overcrowding, voter confusion, election fraud, and to facilitate election administration
The arguments for ballot content censorship is that it mitigates voter confusion by limiting how many names appear on a ballot. The only reason a voter might be confused by the number of names printed on the ballot is that the state presumes the right to print candidate and party names on the ballot. If the state does not print any names on the ballot there can not be “confusing overcrowded list”. Ballot overcrowding is a creation of the state ballot monopoly.
How can voters can cast fraudulent ballots unless the number of choices is restricted is not clear.
The least credible claim is that elections cannot be administered with integrity unless the number of choices is restricted. In short, if voters make too many choices they will overwhelm election administration. This indicates a fault with the state monopoly not a fault with voters or candidates.
Supreme Court case law demonstrates the evasion how ballot access requirements can comport with principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court allows voter and candidate censorship so long as it is reasonable. How many voters are licensed to vote and how many candidates are licensed to receive votes which does not abridge the privileges or immunites of citizens is not subject to due process on a case by case basis. Instead, the Supreme Court allow the state to lump voters and candidates into classes defined by arbitrary quotas for participation in elections and that such collectivization does not, the Court opines, deny to any person within the states jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court explaines, in enacting the ballot access requirements, the state “surely [had] an important state interest in requiring some preliminary showing of a significant modicum of support before printing the name of a political organization’s candidate on the ballot—the interest, if no other, in avoiding confusion, deception, and even frustration of the democratic process at the general election.”
So there are some rights which only come into existence when there a significant modicum of support for those rights.
There is nothing in the Constitution about rights requiring a “modicum” or quota of agreement to be exercised by the individual.
Finally, the Court has asserted that incumbent politicians have a compelling interest not found in the text of the Constitution to censor who may vote and who may receive votes by monopolizing the ballot.
Compare and contrast these Court doctrines with the doctrines of fascism.
And yet D Frank Robinson didn’t say a word when Redpath had his opponent thrown off the ballot. Hypocrite.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/court-appears-ready-to-overturn-state-law-allowing-for-late-arriving-mail-in-ballots/
SB on late ABS ballots case
D. Frank Robinson continues to demonstrate he doesn’t know what fascist means. The AZ spambot aka nAZi-666 would have a lot of balls talking about anything else besides Ifo’s questions, if it had balls.