Comments on: Newest North Carolina Ballot Access Lawsuit Gets Publicity http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/03/08/newest-north-carolina-ballot-access-lawsuit-gets-publicity/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:51:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4808 By: Jordon M. Greene http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/03/08/newest-north-carolina-ballot-access-lawsuit-gets-publicity/comment-page-1/#comment-786487 Jordon M. Greene Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:22:14 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=11085#comment-786487 Yes, he is planning to run for the same House District (103). The article got that wrong, as well as some other small things such as the requirements that the NCFPE's bill proposal would ask for. The proposals requirements are staggered based no the level of the office, between state, district and county level office. The District and County Office proposal is a 1/4 of 1% (or 0.25%) of the total number of registered voters eligible to vote for that office as of Jan. 1 of the election year (opposed to the current 4%) with a cap of NO more than 1,500 for Congressional Candidates, NO more than 500 for State Senate (or a multiple county State House District), and NO more than 250 for a County or single County State House district, and NO more than 50 for a district office which is less than an entire county. Also the Statewide Unaffiliated requirement would be set at 5,000 signatures. The last time we tried to put set number requirements instead of percentage requirements for the District and lower offices they were immediately changed back to percentage requirements which were harder than what we proposed. Hopefully this will allow us to keep a lower requirement this time around. Also the NCFPE is still working on the issue of the article above, on how an Independent can retain access to the ballot for the immediately following election. Any input can be sent to us at info@ncfpe.com. Yes, he is planning to run for the same House District (103). The article got that wrong, as well as some other small things such as the requirements that the NCFPE’s bill proposal would ask for. The proposals requirements are staggered based no the level of the office, between state, district and county level office. The District and County Office proposal is a 1/4 of 1% (or 0.25%) of the total number of registered voters eligible to vote for that office as of Jan. 1 of the election year (opposed to the current 4%) with a cap of NO more than 1,500 for Congressional Candidates, NO more than 500 for State Senate (or a multiple county State House District), and NO more than 250 for a County or single County State House district, and NO more than 50 for a district office which is less than an entire county. Also the Statewide Unaffiliated requirement would be set at 5,000 signatures.

The last time we tried to put set number requirements instead of percentage requirements for the District and lower offices they were immediately changed back to percentage requirements which were harder than what we proposed. Hopefully this will allow us to keep a lower requirement this time around.

Also the NCFPE is still working on the issue of the article above, on how an Independent can retain access to the ballot for the immediately following election. Any input can be sent to us at info@ncfpe.com.

]]> By: Jim Riley http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/03/08/newest-north-carolina-ballot-access-lawsuit-gets-publicity/comment-page-1/#comment-786458 Jim Riley Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:42:10 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=11085#comment-786458 Is he planning to run for the same Gouse seat? The article says he is a "congressional" candidate. Is he planning to run for the same Gouse seat? The article says he is a “congressional” candidate.

]]>