I would agree, and most laws in California are designed and construed to
favor the voters.  However, in this case (as has been repeatedly stated) it
is not a third party trying to deny access to a candidate.  In this case it
is the country's highest elected official taking the risk of denying himself
access to the ballot.  I guess the question is, "Is there a requirement to
place someone on a ballot for office who has not demonstrated a significant
interest in being on the ballot?" 
I think back to my election for the state legislature.  When deciding to run
I followed all laws in place.  I filed the proper paperwork at or before the
time it was required, I obtained the necessary signatures and I met all
deadlines.  I did not have the option of deciding that I didn't like some
law or deadline and then hope that it got changed.  Once in office and upon
running for reelection I again, as obvious as it may sound, was required to
follow the law. There were no exceptions made to accommodate my schedule,
preferences or for any other reason.  I fail to see why any special
accommodations should be made in this case. If the Legislature acts, so be
it, if not, that was a risk the President took. His actions should simply be
construed as not deeming Illinois (or any other state had they failed to
act) important enough to have his name appear on the ballot. 
>From a personal standpoint, I actually think it is the height of arrogance
on the part of the President to assume that states can, will, and should
change election law to accommodate his schedule. (Can you imagine the outcry
if Clinton had tried the same thing?)


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	ban@richardwinger.com [mailto:richardwinger@yahoo.com] 
Sent:	Friday, June 04, 2004 10:30 AM
To:	election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject:	voters are innocent victims and should not be punished

I thank Jerry Goldfeder for having stimulated this
interesting exchange about ballot access.  I am
surprised that anyone on this list favors keeping Bush
off the Illinois ballot.  The posters don't
acknowledge that the voters are being harmed by such
shenanigans.  When a candidate with substantial voter
support is kept off the ballot, the voters who desire
to vote for that candidate are disenfranchised.  Where
is the concern on this list for the voters?  Have we
forgotten what the function of ballots is?  Ballots
are for the purpose of letting voters express their will.


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/