[EL] sore-loser laws for Congress
Richard Winger
richardwinger at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 13 09:55:26 PST 2012
The South Carolina plaintiff-candidates weren't running for Congress.
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
--- On Tue, 11/13/12, Dan Meek <dan at meek.net> wrote:
From: Dan Meek <dan at meek.net>
Subject: Re: [EL] sore-loser laws for Congress
To: richardwinger at yahoo.com
Cc: "David A. Holtzman" <David at HoltzmanLaw.com>, "Lillie Coney" <coney at lillieconey.net>, law-election at uci.edu
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2012, 5:35 AM
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
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
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
David
A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
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
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/20121113/6d627ab6/attachment.html>
View list directory