[EL] sore-loser laws for Congress
Dan Meek
dan at meek.net
Tue Nov 13 05:35:26 PST 2012
Sore loser laws have been upheld since then. See South Carolina Green
Party v. South Carolina State Election Commission, 612 F.3d 752 C.A.4
(S.C.) 2010.
Dan Meek
503-293-9021 dan at meek.net <mailto:dan at meek.net> 866-926-9646 fax
On 11/12/2012 3:13 PM, Richard Winger wrote:
I feel sore-loser laws are unconstitutional, as a result of US Term
Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995). I agree with Lillie Coney. I
also think sore-loser laws are unwise.
In Storer v Brown, Justice Byron White, the author, wrote footnote 16
saying "of course" sore loser laws don't violate Article One, but he
didn't really explain why they aren't unconstitutional. Storer v Brown
came out in 1974, before the US Supreme Court had even decided whether
states can add to the qualifications for Congress. So he was premature
to even express himself in 1974.
White's very short footnote 16 was insulting to Joseph Remcho and Paul
Halvonik, who devoted half their brief to arguing the point about
Article One. For Justice White to dismiss one of their biggest
arguments with a very short footnote, at the very end of the opinion,
was not respectful.
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
--- On *Mon, 11/12/12, Lillie Coney /<coney at lillieconey.net>/* wrote:
From: Lillie Coney <coney at lillieconey.net>
Subject: Re: [EL] Reps got more popular votes for US House in 1996
than Dems
To: "David A. Holtzman" <David at HoltzmanLaw.com>
Cc: richardwinger at yahoo.com, law-election at uci.edu
Date: Monday, November 12, 2012, 2:43 PM
Allowing candidates who are not successful in primaries or
caucuses on the General election ballot may have a silver lining
if they have stronger electability prospects. In any case, this approach
could limit competition and encourage third party efforts. For some
time the thought of successful Independent Federal candidate seemed
far fetched, but now there are Independents in the Senate.
The other thought is this approach might shift the focus of dollars and
energy to the primary level. The primary caucus process is where
candidates with little in resources may find an opportunity to enter
competition for elected office. The question about primary and caucus
elections are managed by each political party. The parties will need
to think about how they would like to manage the issue of unsuccessful
primary or caucus candidates joining the ballot in the general elections
as independents.
I do not see how one party can ban someone from a general election
ballot who meets the requirements established by a state. Even
if a state passes a law that bans a candidate that ran in an
unsuccessful
political party primary or caucus election I do not see how they
could do
this without a legal challenge being a huge chance of being successful.
The person running would not be running under the party standard that
is challenging their presence on the ballot. Would a challenge
be seen as
limiting political speech? Is there a right to run for elected
office--has this
been established by previous court decision?
Lillie
On Nov 12, 2012, at 4:01 PM, David A. Holtzman wrote:
> So Richard,
>
> What's your position now on holding just *part* of an election
> before November?
>
> Say, a primary in September?Constitutional?Legal?
>
> Say, a primary in June?Constitutional?Legal?
>
> With primary losers barred from the ballot (even as write-ins) in
> November?Constitutional?Legal?
>
> With write-ins allowed only in the primary, not in
> November?Constitutional?Legal?
>
> - dah
>
>
> On 11/12/2012 12:30 PM, Richard Winger wrote:
>> The Clerk of the US House of Representatives data for 1996
>> doesn't include the September 21, 1996 election results for US
>> House in Louisiana. That is why the Clerk's chart shows
>> Democrats got more popular votes than the Republicans nationwide,
>> because the Clerk's data only has the Louisiana returns that took
>> place in November, which was only 2 districts.
>>
>> The US Supreme Court ruled in 1997 in Foster v Love that
>> Louisiana was breaking the federal law by holding its
>> congressional elections in September. So, the US Supreme Court
>> agreed with my approach, that the Louisiana election in September
>> was an election, and therefore it is rational for me to have
>> included the September results in those 5 districts.
>>
>> Rhodes Cook agrees with me. See America Votes 1996 (vol. 22),
>> page 4. His compilation of the national US House vote for 1996
>> by party is: Republican 43,902,303; Democratic 43,626,470.
>>
>> Richard Winger
>> 415-922-9779
>> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu </mc/compose?to=Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com </mc/compose?to=david at holtzmanlaw.com>
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may
> be confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are
> not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering
> this email to an intended recipient, be advised that you have
> received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
> forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
> immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> </mc/compose?to=Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121113/6d69864f/attachment.html>
View list directory