[EL] factual error in article Rick Hasen linked to today

[Richard Winger]

Thanks to Rick Hasen for posting a link to the Buffalo News story about the New York state decision striking down the May petition deadline.  That story quotes a professor of political science.  The professor quite correctly mentioned Anderson v Celebrezze.  I am glad, because until then, the press in Buffalo had been completely unaware or unwilling to explain why the decision of both a US District Court and a New York State Supreme Court are correct.
But then the professor said John Anderson in 1980 wasn't a sore loser.  That is certainly untrue.  The dissent in Anderson v Celebrezze makes much of that point.  Anderson had run in 20 Republican presidential primaries and had lost them all.  The best he did was to place 2nd in Massachusetts and Vermont.
Also the professor said the Purcell Principle might apply, but the Purcell Principle has never been applied in ballot access cases; only in cases involving changing voting procedures.  Since 2006, when the shadow docket produced the "Purcell Principle" there have been 4 presidential elections.  In all four, courts have added minor party or independent candidates to general election ballot, multiple times each election year.

Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210906/2eee081a/attachment.html>