Louisiana Candidate Asks State Supreme Court to Put Him on Ballot

Jimmy Fahrenholtz has asked the Louisiana Supreme Court to restore him to the Democratic Party primary ballot. He is running for U.S. House, 2nd district (New Orleans district). The State Court of Appeals had tied 4-4 on whether to restore him to the ballot. The lower court had removed him because it said he had signed a false statement, as to whether he had any outstanding campaign finance law fines when he had run earlier for New Orleans School Board. He argues, with considerable legal authority behind him, that candidates for Congress cannot be kept off ballots if they meet the constitutional qualifications and show a modicum of support. The case is Williams v Fahrenholtz, 2008-c-1680. The Court has not yet said if it will hear his appeal.


Comments

Louisiana Candidate Asks State Supreme Court to Put Him on Ballot — No Comments

  1. Certainly no candidate should be allowed to run for office if he makes a false statement.
    No candidate.

    Of course, that means most of our elections would have nobody on the ballot.

  2. The question here is not whether a candidate who makes a false statement should be allowed to run for office. It’s whether the states have the authority to add to the U.S. Constitution’s list of qualifications for Congressional candidates.

    Also, the matter of Fahrenholtz’s “false statement” is a complex one. The qualifying form that Louisiana provides for all candidates does not actually ask whether the candidate owes any campaign finance fines. Instead, it contains a list of statements, including one which says that the candidate does not owe any such fines. By signing the required form, the candidate is affirming that all the statements on the form (including the pre-printed statements) are true.

    The problem is that some of the statements (e.g., the one about not owing any campaign finance fines) are not constitutionally relevant to Congressional candidates.

    Fahrenholtz could argue that he did not make a false statement, since he was only affirming the truth of the statements that actually applied to his candidacy.

  3. Typical of government forms… adding questions that nothing to do with qualification… not legally anyway. However what should concern people the most is the fact that 4 still voted that he couldn’t be added… that 4 who either don’t know the Constitution or don’t care. We have enough of that already.

    All that being said, if he can’t budget his money properly it doesn’t speak very well of him. We already have enough like that too… they can’t manage their own money but want us to trust them with “ours”. 🙂

  4. I will be interested to see how many states fail to meet bdget this year. They need a solid budget like the rest of America is living on.

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.