Comments on: Reform Institute Releases Study on Presidential Ballot Access

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:27:59 +0000

Thank you very much, Jim R. This makes up for your failure to respond to my e-mails.

Interesting that an ex-RNC chairman like Bill Brock would join McCain in support of the blanket primary. Brock attended the Oklahoma meeting that David Boren recently hosted.

I was in Tennessee in ’76, when Brock ran for a second term as U. S. senator against Jim Sasser. It came out that the wealthy Brock had paid little or no income tax for a period of time, and almost overnight, the state was covered with bumper-stickers that said, “I paid more income tax than Bill Brock!”

By: Darryl W. Perry

Darryl W. Perry — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:54:13 +0000

I found it here:
http://www.reforminstitute.org/DetailPublications.aspx?pid=159&cid=

By: Kimberly Wilder

Kimberly Wilder — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:23:07 +0000

Wow!

I am sure there are many important pieces of information in this article.

But, the one that sticks out the most for me is:

Who would even think about writing a report on ballot access and not check in with Richard Winger, the premiere expert on it in the country?

I am serious. Every time someone mentions a ballot access question, someone is likely to say, “We should ask Richard Winger.” Or, “Check with Ballot Access News.” And, the list of court cases Richard Winger has been on, as an expert witness, is amazing.

If that Reform Institute report was associated with McCain, than maybe it figures. The Duopoly just absolutely does not get it. They can’t even see the facts on the ground that third parties see. Richard Winger is the point person on ballot access.

(Does the Reform Institute know how to google search?)

Sincerely,
Kimberly Wilder

By: Jim R

Jim R — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:14:42 +0000

Was the report actually issued? I couldn’t find it on the Reform Institute web site.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:55:04 +0000

Steve Rankin,

Here’s the McCain, et al brief for California Democratic Party v. Jones

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-401/99-401fo7/brief/brief01.html

By: Darryl W. Perry

Darryl W. Perry — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:12:17 +0000

Their info is incorrect, an Independent Presidential Candidate only needs 5,000 signatures; however the number they give is correct for OTHER independents.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:32:52 +0000

The main problem is revealed in your first sentence. This group is “associated… with U.S. Senator John McCain…”

Several years ago, I tried repeatedly– and in vain– to get a copy of Crazy John’s amicus brief from the blanket primary case, California Democratic Party v. Jones.

In 2004, McCain had a statement on the Web site of the group promoting the “top two” initiative in California. He said that his state of Arizona also had an “open primary,” implying that the Arizona setup and the California proposal were the same. In fact, the two systems were considerably different.

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:41:46 +0000

Separate is NOT EQUAL.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954).

Way too difficult for the armies of MORON lawyers in ballot access cases.

How many super-computers are needed to keep up with the D/R UNEQUAL ballot access laws ?