Comments on: North Carolina Files Brief in Lawsuit on Independent Candidate Ballot Access for U.S. House

By: Jordon M. Greene

Jordon M. Greene — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:39:04 +0000

True Mr. Winger, but the actual number are not available until January 1 of the election year, so the candidate cannot know the exact number. Should it be allowable or correct in a court case, to say that just because a petition has no actual time limit that it is 1.5 years when the number is not officially known until around 175 (or so) says prior to the deadline?

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:54:32 +0000

As to the state’s argument that candidates have one and one-half years to petition, the state probably means that independent candidates are free to start petitioning even before anyone can know exactly how many signatures will be needed. And it is true, registration data doesn’t change that much from one year to the next, generally.

By: Jordon M. Greene

Jordon M. Greene — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:40:51 +0000

Thanks Bryan for the analogy, I really like that. I am planning to do a short write-up on this and would like to know if I could possibly consider using that analogy?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:35:42 +0000

Oh, I especially like argument 1B, wherein the State claims that the high bar they set should be used to measure the standing of persons who fail to meet the requirements.

As an analogy, the state is claiming that because an eight inch obstacle is the tallest you could surmount in your wheelchair, you have no standing to ask the court to ban the statewide implementation of forty-foot walls from in front of fire escapes.

By: Joyce McCloy

Joyce McCloy — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:00:33 +0000

NC used to have ballot access and also Fusion.

See the History of Fusion Politics in North Caroloina here:
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/58/entry

One of the most interesting aspects of Populist-Republican Fusion rule was the service of African American office holders. There were approximately 1,000 elected or appointed black officials, including Congressman George H. White (1852-1918). Although black Tar Heels were still underrepresented, the presence of black officials troubled Democratic white supremacists.

In the 1898 â€œWhite Supremacy Campaign,â€ led by future U.S. Senator Furnifold M. Simmons (1854-1940), chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, the Democratic Party used identity politics to regain power.
…
Shortly after a resounding victory, Democrats disfranchised African Americans and thereby ended a possible Republican resurgence.
…

By: Jordon M. Greene

Jordon M. Greene — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:58:01 +0000

It amazes me the brazeness of the NC Attorney General and the State. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they state makes this statement:

“By contrast to Georgiaâ€™s statutory framework, North Carolina requires only signatures equal in amount to 4% of registered voters in the district as of January 1, and it gives potential candidates essentially one and one-half years to gather signatures.”

Since when did from January 1 of 2008, to June 27 of 2008 become one and one half years? Isn’t that more like 178 days, only 48.8% of ONE year, or only HALF a year? Beyond this the State says in their brief:

“Plaintiffs assert in their brief to this Court that they have a ‘fundamental right[] . . . to promote Bryan Greeneâ€™s candidacy.’ This assertion is, of course, absurd.”

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:41:30 +0000

Separate is still NOT equal.

Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954

A BASIC point NOT brought up by the MORON lawyers in Williams, Jenness, etc. etc.

Result — A mere 42 years of MORON ballot access cases in the party hack Supremes — going on a zillion years ???

EQUAL nominating petitions for ALL candidates —
EQUAL as in EQUAL protection in the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1

Way too difficult for MORON lawyers and judges to understand.

P.R. and nonpartisan A.V.