Comments on: Montana Wants to Help Arizona Defend Early Petition Deadline in U.S. Supreme Court

By: Jim Riley

Jim Riley — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:32:48 +0000

I’m sure that most citizens have no clue about what the legislature does, or even what it is. But nonetheless, the legal presumption is that the people chose the legislature to pass the laws that they did, and that the AG should defend the action of the legislature against meddling by federal courts.

I’d like a Constitution that limited each member to introducing one bill per session. I suspect that few members would use their one chance to pass a bill on some of the things that they do. Currently, they can just come up with dozens of ideas, and have the staff draft a bill.

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:58:43 +0000

What genius lawyer is filing an amicus brief bringing up –

SEPARATE IS ***NOT*** EQUAL.

Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — that started the *modern* civil rights era.

I.E. EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.

New Age SOOOOO difficult to understand.

By: Allen

Allen — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:19:15 +0000

Jim, I think most citizens do not know what the legislature does in some of these election laws. In Montana you used to be able to run for two different offices at the same time, and you could run in two different primaries for the same office. The main two parties changed those laws. It’s the people in power changing things for their benefit and not for the benefit of the people of Montana.

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:06:35 +0000

State governments working together to screw over the voters. Suprise, suprise.

By: Jim Riley

Jim Riley — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:47:11 +0000

Re #4 The people of Montana elected its legislature. Therefore, it can be presumed that the people of Montana supported the changes in the election laws, and want their laws to be defended against meddling by federal courts.

Any money spent by the Montana AG in their amicus curiae brief is being spent to defend a Montana law that is similar to the Arizona law. Most likely, a large amount of the money spent in preparing the brief will be spent in Montana.

By: Allen

Allen — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:36:38 +0000

The reason for the change in Montana was to allow all candidates to file at the same time in March. Our tax dollars should not go to Arizona. Some people may wait until the primary election to decide that they should run. Steve Kelly decided he would run after Liberal Bob Kelleher won the Republican Senate nomination in June. This was a two way race and Max won easily. We just need to change the president filing so the SOS can’t make his own deadline to keep his party happy.

By: Jim Riley

Jim Riley — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:33:29 +0000

#1 Presumably the citizens of Montana are cool with their legislature changing the filing deadline from June to March, and would want Montana election laws to be upheld, rather than overturned by a federal court that was only cognizant of the specific issues in Arizona.

By: Rationality and Science Education

Rationality and Science Education — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:12:05 +0000

Why stop with Arid Zona? On ward to Nude Mexico and other regions!

——- Donald Raymond Lake

Recall ditzy KCMO Mayor Mark FUNKhouser!

Kill the totally unneeded New Ruskin HS Fence!

By: Earl

Earl — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:52:12 +0000

I wonder how the citizens of Montana would feel knowing that their tax dollars are going to help Arizona. And why stop there? Maybe the citizens of Montana should start paying for roads, parks, schools, etc in Arizona!