Comments on: Nader Will Sue Idaho to Use Out-of-State Petitioners http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/05/nader-will-sue-idaho-to-use-out-of-state-petitioners/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:30:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=6603 By: Leslie Graves http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/05/nader-will-sue-idaho-to-use-out-of-state-petitioners/comment-page-1/#comment-461562 Leslie Graves Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:24:54 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3777#comment-461562 Here's a good run-down on the current state of residency requirements: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Residency_requirements_for_petition_circulators Here’s a good run-down on the current state of residency requirements:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Residency_requirements_for_petition_circulators

]]> By: Nigel T. Gully http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/05/nader-will-sue-idaho-to-use-out-of-state-petitioners/comment-page-1/#comment-460340 Nigel T. Gully Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:37:22 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3777#comment-460340 Good luck to Ralph! I'd love to see Idaho as another state which has an opportunity to vote for the Nader/Gonzalez ticket. After all, what's so wrong with the idea of "more voices, more choices?" Why would the law necessitate in-state petitioners only? What's the reasoning behind that? Best, Nigel Good luck to Ralph! I’d love to see Idaho as another state which has an opportunity to vote for the Nader/Gonzalez ticket. After all, what’s so wrong with the idea of “more voices, more choices?”

Why would the law necessitate in-state petitioners only? What’s the reasoning behind that?

Best,
Nigel

]]> By: Richard http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/05/nader-will-sue-idaho-to-use-out-of-state-petitioners/comment-page-1/#comment-460113 Richard Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:27:15 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3777#comment-460113 In 2006, the Natural Law Party changed its name to the United Party, in Idaho. The law requires a party to run at least 3 candidates, in order to remain on the ballot for the next election. The United Party nominated 3 candidates in 2006, but one of them withdrew. So it was on in 2006 but went off immediately afterwards. Thanks for the note on Montana. In 2006, the Natural Law Party changed its name to the United Party, in Idaho. The law requires a party to run at least 3 candidates, in order to remain on the ballot for the next election. The United Party nominated 3 candidates in 2006, but one of them withdrew. So it was on in 2006 but went off immediately afterwards.

Thanks for the note on Montana.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/05/nader-will-sue-idaho-to-use-out-of-state-petitioners/comment-page-1/#comment-460091 Andrew Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:42:06 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3777#comment-460091 Are the NLP still on the ballot in Idaho? Are the NLP still on the ballot in Idaho?

]]> By: Allen http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/05/nader-will-sue-idaho-to-use-out-of-state-petitioners/comment-page-1/#comment-460068 Allen Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:56:31 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3777#comment-460068 Montana is also in the 9th, and outlaws out of state petitioners on ballot issues. That should also apply to Independent candidates as well I think. Montana is also in the 9th, and outlaws out of state petitioners on ballot issues. That should also apply to Independent candidates as well I think.

]]> By: From Don Lake http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/05/nader-will-sue-idaho-to-use-out-of-state-petitioners/comment-page-1/#comment-460067 From Don Lake Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:53:55 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3777#comment-460067 And yet, in 2006, the independent 'United Party' [a paper thin organization if there ever was one] got on the ballot for CD1 using the Natural Law Party ballot. It took the guy and his spouse about six weeks to arraign. Duh? Go get em Ralph. Take the long way around the barn. Why take 'the high road' when you can take the vertical trail? Why cut corners when you can add a couple? Opportunities lost? After Richard Winger, Phil Sawyer, and Don Lake separately suggested to the [so called] reform party of California that they engage in a 'friendly take over' of the NLP line, the same was forwarded by Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] for Nader/ Camejo P2004 -----with similar results. And yet, in 2006, the independent ‘United Party’ [a paper thin organization if there ever was one] got on the ballot for CD1 using the Natural Law Party ballot. It took the guy and his spouse about six weeks to arraign. Duh?

Go get em Ralph. Take the long way around the barn. Why take ‘the high road’ when you can take the vertical trail? Why cut corners when you can add a couple?

Opportunities lost? After Richard Winger, Phil Sawyer, and Don Lake separately suggested to the [so called] reform party of California that they engage in a ‘friendly take over’ of the NLP line, the same was forwarded by Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] for Nader/ Camejo P2004 —–with similar results.

]]>