On December 18, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Holmes Bell struck down Michigan election law 168.957, which says that circulators of recall petitions must be registered voters who live in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled. Bogaert v Land, 1:08-cv-687, western district. See this story.
The decision was no surprise, because the same judge had issued an injunction against that same law last year, so that a recall petition against a state legislator would not be found lacking in valid signatures. The recall had enough otherwise valid signatures, except that some of the signatures had been collected by people who didn’t live in the district. Last year, after Judge Bell had granted injunctive relief, the state had appealed to the 6th circuit, but the 6th circuit had said the matter of injunctive relief was moot, because the recall election had already been held by the time the case reached the 6th circuit. Thanks to Bill Hall for the link.
This case is the first one in which a residency requirement for circulators of a recall petition has been invalidated. Michigan had argued that even if residency requirements for initiatives and candidates are unconstitutional, that recall petitions are different. But the ruling says that the same First Amendment principles apply, no matter what kind of petition is being circulated.
How soon before armies of folks (legal and illegal) from Asia, etc. are doing all sorts of election law petitions — being paid for by the usual suspect leftwing / rightwing party hack gangs ???
Electors / Voters — AREA connection.
Too much for MORON brain dead zombie judges to understand.
1st Amdt petitions are NOT election law petitions for ballot access (candidates, issues, recalls, whatever) — by the alleged sovereign Electors / Voters in an alleged sovereign State — with everybody else being ALIENS.
Ancient Greece – Take part in the election process when one was NOT a qualified elector = Death penalty.
Things have really dumbed down and down and down — due to the party hack Supremes and their EVIL power to subvert and mystify just about everything.
“Demo Rep Says:
December 20th, 2009 at 11:32 am
How soon before armies of folks (legal and illegal) from Asia, etc. are doing all sorts of election law petitions — being paid for by the usual suspect left wing / rightwing party hack gangs ???”
They’d better be able to speak English well, because it is difficult enough getting people to stop and sign petitions when one is a native English speaker. It would be far more difficult if one does not speak English or has a Chinese or Korean (or whatevery other country in Asia) accent.
“1st Amdt petitions are NOT election law petitions for ballot access (candidates, issues, recalls, whatever) — by the alleged sovereign Electors / Voters in an alleged sovereign State — with everybody”
All petition circulators do is ask people to sign petitions. Asking people something and/or talking about a political issue is free speech.
“Ancient Greece – Take part in the election process when one was NOT a qualified elector = Death penalty.”
Asking somebody to sign a petition is NOT the same thing as voting.
Under your “logic” anyone who travels to a state where they do not normally reside should be arrested for talking about politics when they are outside of their regular home state. This would mean that an out-of-state comedian would be arrested for telling political jokes in a state where they do not normally reside, or an out-of-state journalist would be arrested for writing about politics in a state where they do not normally reside, or an out-of-state campaign manager would be arrested for managing a campaign in a state where they do not normally reside, or an out of state sign maker would be arrested for making political signs for a state where they do not normally reside, or a TV advertising producer would be a arrested for making politial TV ads for a state where they do not normally reside, etc…
Your “logic” is seriously flawed.
So I take it that there is no longer a ban on out-of-state petition circulators for any types of petitions in Michigan, right?
Michigan election law 168.544c(3) says that candidate petitions can only be circulated by people who are registered voters in Michigan, but that initiative petitions can be circulated by Michigan residents who are eligible to register to vote. So independent candidate petitions, and petitions to get someone on a primary ballot, are very restricted. Yet there seems to be no prohibition on anyone at all circulating a petition for a new or previously unqualified party.
The recent court ruling has no effect on 168.544c(3), because the plaintiff was circulating a recall petition. The court ruling was limited to recall petitions. But the restriction on candidate and initiative petitions would now appear to be sitting ducks for a new lawsuit.
Each circulator of a PUBLIC ballot access petition has elements of being a NOTARY PUBLIC — a very high PUBLIC office — witnessing the PUBLIC act of signing the petition — SERIOUS business — and NOT some elementary school petition about some stuff on a wall in such school.
BUT — this is the New Age — with mere Constitutions going out the window and down the drain — due to armies of MORON party hack judges and courts.
Good luck in getting any hoards of ALIEN folks (especially from out of the U.S.A. — Mexico, Canada, Asia, Africa, etc.) being witnesses in courts about possible fraudulent names and addresses on petitions — pending super high speed scanning of petitions.
How soon before NON- Elector-Voters will be signing ballot access petitions — children, felons in jails, FOREIGN folks (those Asian hoards again — Osama the EVIL and his gang, etc.), Martians from outer space, etc. ???
Try and find ANY ballot access stuff in the book Sources of Our Liberties edited by Richard L. Perry (1959, American Bar Assn).
How silly your arguments are. The signatures must be varified by the same individuals who would be varifying them no matter who circulated the petition. The voters make the ultimate decision. All this does is give citizens a more level playing field.
Before this only political parties, large unions, and special interests had the money, people and organization to get things on the ballot. The internet, and common purpose has now helped organize the voters.
Quit whining. If the elected officials were doing what they should be doing, there would not be a need for referendum or recall. Maybe now they will pay attention. The behavior of the supporters of the corupt politicions are deplorable.
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
§ 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition.
Sec. 3.
The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
My comment #5 has an error. Michigan requires petitions to qualify a new party to be circulated only by people who are registered voters in Michigan.
#7 *to petition the government for redress of grievances* = NOT the same as petitions for ballot access for parties, candidates, issues, recalls, etc.
See Mich Const — petitions for —
Art II, Sec. 8 Recalls
Art II, Sec. 9 Law Initiatives
Art XII, Sec. 2 State constitutional amendments
SEPARATE sections — NOT covered in Art. I, Sec. 3.
See the OLD real petitions for redress of grievances before 4 July 1776 — many were deemed *seditious libel* by the EVIL King George III regime.
What year did the first State have ANY elector signed petitions for ballot access for parties, candidates, issues, recalls, etc. ??? Just a mere FACT.
The first state law requiring a petition for an independent candidate to get on the ballot for federal or state office was Massachusetts, effective 1889. Back then Massachusetts elected its Governor every calendar year, so the 1889 election was the first. It required 1,000 signatures for statewide office and 1% of the last gubernatorial vote inside the district (for district offices).
Sounds to me like you want to make the decisions for the voters. The Constitution – approved by the voters.
Recalls – approved by the voters. Referendums – approved by the voters. Maybe we should just eliminate the voters and have an oligarcy. FAT CHANCE BUDDY.
A note about recalls in Michigan. Recall petitions have to go to the Board of County Election Commissioners for a clarity review. The reason(s) for a recall need not be that an officeholder has committed malfeasance, misfeasance, or non-feasance (doing a wrong thing, doing something the wrong way, or not doing something) — according to MCL 168.952, all each reason has to be is
* “based upon the officer’s conduct during his or her current term of office”; and
* “of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.”
In fact, some local school-board members where I live were recalled for *not* putting the high-school sports nickname up for a popular vote . . . when they’d had a legal opinion that doing so would have exceeded their legal authority. (And the replacement board found they got the same advice when they tried it. . . .)
Richard,
IS there a list of states that allow non-residents (of the state, NOT the US) to circulate petitions, and would that be different for Initiative/Referendum, New Party, and Established or minor party?
#10 — So for the mere first 113 years — 1776 to 1889 — there were NO election law petitions to get candidates and issues on the official ballots !!! ???
What sayeth the appointed party hack Supremes about such FACT ???
#11 — P.R. and A.V. — to get REAL Democracy — to END the rule of the party hack gerrymander monarchs.
Required – much more specific *self-enforcing* language for having petitions for recalls, laws and constitutional amendments — so the party hacks can NOT stop such petitions.
Currently the party hacks in the State legislatures pass laws to implement such vague petition sections (i.e. almost make it impossible to have such petitions — without having an army of lawyers and a super army of donors).
I’d need to verify with you here. Which isn’t something I usually do! I take pleasure in studying a submit that can make people think. Additionally, thanks for allowing me to comment!