Home Uncategorized Alabama Tries to Persuade U.S. District Court to Skip Ruling on Constitutionality of Ballot Access in Special Elections

Alabama Tries to Persuade U.S. District Court to Skip Ruling on Constitutionality of Ballot Access in Special Elections

On December 26, attorneys for the state of Alabama filed a brief in U.S. District Court, asking that the case Hall v Bennett be dismissed without any ruling on whether it is constitutional for Alabama to impose the same severe petition requirements in special elections that it does in regular elections.

Alabama held a special congressional election on December 17. The only petitioning candidate who submitted signatures, independent James Hall, submitted over 3,000 signatures, but was still denied ballot access because the state required almost 6,000. The basis for Hall’s lawsuit was that in a normal election, an independent candidate has at least two years, and potentially longer, to collect the needed signatures. In the case of the special election, though, the petitioning time was severely curtailed. Hall failed to win injunctive relief, but his lawsuit for declaratory relief is still pending.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that constitutional challenges to ballot access laws are not moot, just because the election is over. The state acknowledges that this is true in regularly-scheduled elections, but argues that each special election is different in its own way, and therefore Hall’s case is moot.

One Response

  1. I am from Alabama, my name is James Orlando Ogle (AKA “Joogle”).

    Google derived from my initials in October of 1997, the US Parliament was three years old at the time, and we were one of the bigger balls of activity because of my run for CA Gov with the Green Party, the creation of a virtual USA Parliament in 1995 and the huge ball of activity surrounding our activities online in Usenet which preceeded the web.

    As an outsider I was attacked by the team splitters and antagonists in the Green Party when I ran in 1994 because they were not for their Gov candidate advocating for pure proportional representation. They planned for NOTA as their reform that year.

    After the election they became interested in IRV which doesn’t give pure proportional representation, IRV was implemented in SF, Oakland and other districts, it’s a winner-takes-all single-winner election and it’s no good.

    Simply because the didn’t understand the math, had no idea about how teamwork and pure proportional representation works, they made a big deal about how I was not the correct choice for the office and so I was defeated by the uncreative, static party bosses who picked NOTA.

    They had a chance to offer their voters in the Green Party free speech and equal time for their Gov candidates but they did not. They were not for inclusion, team-building, unity and diversity.

    Same thing in the Libertarian Party POTUS campaign in 2012. I won the Missouri primary despite being censored, attacked and slandered by those who were for “Mr. Veto”. But a veto is a plurality, a “my way or no way”, divisive and dictatorial decision-making alternative. They had no time to hear about why I won the Missouri primary advocating a Green/Libertarian ticket with Roseanne as POTUS and myself as Vice POTUS which is the plan I advocated in Missouri.

    I was slandered, censored and brushed off the the party bosses of the national Libertarian Party in 2012.

    Do you want unity, fair representation and fair and equal elections? Then you should consider working with a system that creates an all-inclusive team that thinks, operates and votes as a unit.

    The 9th USA Parliament has been doing that for 18 consecutive years and it works great.

    We welcome all people, the correct voting is the juice which attracts and identifies the team players, the cool people who want to promote truly fair elections and not just lip service.

    You can be sure that when a person advocates for one political party or independent, they are not advocating for a team.

    When people react poorly to the US Parliament, that’s not new, we see road blocks and the lack of camaraderie everyday.

    Cool people will return a phone call, appreciate being on a team, accept the teamwork and protect all the nominees equally across the board have stuck around despite the break down by others at crucial times. Team-splitters will advocate against equal time because they want to control the results before a person even gets to present their case for their candidacy.

    Ballot access consists of more than just state laws written by those elected in single-winner districts and plurality elections. Ballot access and equal treatment requires very detailed and deliberate methods in the ballot preparation, free speech access, the ranking of names in multi-winner districts and the vote counting.

    Ballot access in single-winner districts will only give us more of the same; dictatorial control freaks who are unaccountable to a vote of confidence.

    We see how things are done wrong year after year, not just the two major parties, but third parties and independents too.

    Don’t you think we should invest our time in doing something right for a change? That’s what the 9th USA Parliament has done every year for 18 consecutive years.

    Won’t you join the team that does it right the first time and every time since August 5th, 1995? We’re a team that’s poised for success, all we need is you.

    Sign up now and find out what pure proportional representation can accomplish under unity with you today. Find out why a vote of confidence for all executives is the only way. If there is no vote of confidence for the executive, you can be sure that the voting system is no good.

    The US Parliament has always used the vote of confidence and we simply reject any other alternative. Without a vote of confidence you still will elect arrogant power mongers no matter if partisan or independent.

    Do it right from the get go. Try the most advanced system around, in the world today; the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, Hagnebach-Bishoff method, ranked choice voting (RCV) in multi-winner districts of two or more only. It’s free and it’s the only way to go:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>