Comments on: California Write-in Case Loses http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:46:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=743 By: qnxmiqesjq http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-71688 qnxmiqesjq Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:05:45 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/#comment-71688 Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! erokclilgh Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! erokclilgh

]]> By: maehuzzxaq http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-41203 maehuzzxaq Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:40:18 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/#comment-41203 <a href="http://sucxlwlyy.com" rel="nofollow">imkkgox</a> imkkgox

]]> By: nZY1pWhchz http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-38968 nZY1pWhchz Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:48:36 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/#comment-38968 Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! oUDCp1DsHw Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! oUDCp1DsHw

]]> By: A Canadian observer http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-12662 A Canadian observer Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:27:50 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/#comment-12662 The Ds and Rs have put so much effort into keeping all other choices off the ballot that this year they are finally tripping over their own "rules". As a Canadian, I'm used to ballots with at least a half-dozen names - indeed, we've had 4 or 5 major parties up here for decades, and no one seems to gets confused. The Ds and Rs have put so much effort into keeping all other choices off the ballot that this year they are finally tripping over their own “rules”.

As a Canadian, I’m used to ballots with at least a half-dozen names – indeed, we’ve had 4 or 5 major parties up here for decades, and no one seems to gets confused.

]]> By: Citizens For A Better Veterans Home http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-12625 Citizens For A Better Veterans Home Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:27:57 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/#comment-12625 We absolutely love it when the Democans and or the Republicrats get stuck with the very same barriers THEY erected to stifle citizen participation in the first place! It could not have happened to a 'nicer' couple of thugs, er, ah, guys! We absolutely love it when the Democans and or the Republicrats get stuck with the very same barriers THEY erected to stifle citizen participation in the first place! It could not have happened to a ‘nicer’ couple of thugs, er, ah, guys!

]]> By: Darryl W. Perry http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-12596 Darryl W. Perry Thu, 10 Aug 2006 04:24:48 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/#comment-12596 Most states have wording that guarantees "fair and equal elections"; yet, have outrageous requirements for ballot acces for anyone not an R or D. These requirements are neither "fair" nor "equal". It seems intent and wording only matter when it benefits the R's & D's. Most states have wording that guarantees “fair and equal elections”; yet, have outrageous requirements for ballot acces for anyone not an R or D. These requirements are neither “fair” nor “equal”. It seems intent and wording only matter when it benefits the R’s & D’s.

]]> By: Christopher Schmidt http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-12565 Christopher Schmidt Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:23:42 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/08/09/california-write-in-case-loses/#comment-12565 According to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_18_cfa_20040621_084126_sen_comm.html the legislative intent was to "ensure the widest possible range of choices for the voters in a general election". And were one following the "intent" line of reasoning, the question would be one of voter intent, in adopting Proposition 60. Without exception, everything in the election materials spoke of guaranteeing a party's right to placement on the general election ballot, so I see no room for inferring any intent to act otherwise. I see no conflict either way. The words of the Constitution are clear. According to:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_18_cfa_20040621_084126_sen_comm.html

the legislative intent was to “ensure the widest possible range of choices for the voters in a general election”.

And were one following the “intent” line of reasoning, the question would be one of voter intent, in adopting Proposition 60. Without exception, everything in the election materials spoke of guaranteeing a party’s right to placement on the general election ballot, so I see no room for inferring any intent to act otherwise.

I see no conflict either way. The words of the Constitution are clear.

]]>