Neither the federal nor state governments are free to
exclude anyone appearing on the ballot as a candidate
for Congress, based on what the candidate did
improperly in the free speech/campaign finance area. 
US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995) settled
the issue.  Neither the federal government, nor a
state government, can keep anyone off the ballot, if
the candidate has a modicum of support, holds the U.S.
Constitutional qualifications to be a member of
Congress, and has not sabotaged his or her own party
by "sore loser" behavior.

Since 1995, the 9th and 10th circuits have ruled that
states cannot keep congressional candidates off the
ballot on the grounds that they aren't registered
voters.

--- "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu> wrote:

	On the other hand, I do think that it might make
some sense for
the government to have extra power over the speech
of *candidates* (not
independent citizens, but candidates) because the
candidate is seeking a
government job.  Here, the government -- and the
public -- would be
acting as employer, setting up conditions for whom
it will "hire" to
serve it.  One thing it may insist on, the theory
would go, is that its
employees and future employees not say things that
would interfere with
a fair and effective selection process; the
government would have no
extra power over what others (media, bloggers, other
citizens) say in
favor of or against the candidate, but it would have
power over what the
candidate, the would-be employee, says.  (Note that
Justice Kennedy
hinted at this possibility in Republican Party v.
White, the judicial
candidate speech case, though I'm not sure how far
he would take it.)

		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com