Presidential Ballot Access, Cont
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Women and the Presidency
Women and the Presidency By Cynthia Richie Terrell* I. Introduction As six women entered the field of Democratic presidential candidates in 2019, the political media rushed to declare 2020 a new “year of the woman.” In the Washington Post, one political commentator proclaimed that “2020 may be historic for women in more ways than one”1 given that four of these woman presidential candidates were already holding a U.S. Senate seat. A writer for Vox similarly hailed the “unprecedented range of solid women” seeking the nomination and urged Democrats to nominate one of them.2 Politico ran a piece definitively declaring that “2020 will be the year of the woman” and went on to suggest that the “Democratic primary landscape looks to be tilted to another woman presidential nominee.”3 The excited tone projected by the media carried an air of inevitability: after Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, despite receiving 2.8 million more popular votes than her opponent, ever more women were running for the presidency. There is a reason, however, why historical inevitably has not yet been realized. Although Americans have selected a president 58 times, a man has won every one of these contests. Before 2019, a major party’s presidential debates had never featured more than one woman. Progress toward gender balance in politics has moved at a glacial pace. In 1937, seventeen years after passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, Gallup conducted a poll in which Americans were asked whether they would support a woman for president “if she were qualified in every other respect?”4 * Cynthia Richie Terrell is the founder and executive director of RepresentWomen, an organization dedicated to advancing women’s representation and leadership in the United States. -
Brexit, Donald Trump and the Populist Upsurge
Master of Arts Thesis Euroculture University of Uppsala (First university) University of Groningen (Second university) August 1st, 2017. Brexit, Donald Trump and the Populist Upsurge A comparative analysis of Brexit Leave Campaign & Trump’s Presidential Campaign based on Mudde’s Minimal Definition of Populism. Submitted by: Anastasia Avetisova Student number first university: Anav9245 Student number second university: s3069311 Contact details: +46736581568 [email protected] Supervised by: James Leigh (University of Groningen) & Moa Mårtensson (University of Uppsala) Sweden, 01/08-17 A. Avetisova MA Programme Euroculture Declaration I, Anastasia Avetisova, hereby declare that this thesis, entitled “Brexit, Donald Trump and the Populist Upsurge: A comparative analysis of Brexit Leave Campaign & Trump’s Presidential Campaign based on Mudde’s Minimal Definition of Populism” submitted as partial requirement for the MA Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within this text of words of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, text, tables, etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the bibliography. I hereby also acknowledge that I was informed about the regulation pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture. Signed: Date: 01/08-2017. 2 A. Avetisova ABSTRACT The recent upsurge of electoral success from the Brexit Leave campaign and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign 2016, confirm that populist politics has taken a greater role in Europe and in the U.S. The purpose of this research is to see to what extent each of the two campaigns are populist, and whether their statements are similar to each other. -
The October 2018 Issue of LP News
MINIMUM GOVERNMENT • MAXIMUM FREEDOM LP.ORG November candidates, Pages 8–13 October 2018 The Official Newspaper of the Libertarian Party Volume 48, Issue 4 In This LPIssue: Libertarians News plan to win this November Chair’s Corner .............................2 ibertarian Party candidates through- out the United States are walking the walk necessary to win elections this Donor appreciation.....................2 Lfall, at all levels of government. In a recently announced high-profile race, former two-term New Mexico Gov. Libertarians plan to win .............3 Gary Johnson is running as a candidate for U.S. Senate from New Mexico. Johnson, who also served as the Libertarian Party’s Liberty Pledge donors ............4–7 presidential candidate in both 2012 and 2016, decided to make this run for Senate Promoting LNC transparency ......7 run after New Mexico Libertarian Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn withdrew to focus on the duties of his current position. November LP candidates ..... 8–13 Johnson is outpolling the Republican candidate in every survey conducted since his announcement. Johnson garnered near- Affiliate Updates ................ 14–16 ly twice the Republican’s numbers in a poll the endorsement of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul state director for the 2012 Ron Paul presi- conducted by Emerson College, and even of Kentucky, and of U.S. Senate candidate dential campaign, in which Paul won a ma- Media Buzz ...............................16 outpolled the Republican candidate among from Maine Eric Brakey. Brakey is currently jority of the Maine delegation. Republican voters. Johnson has received a state senator who previously served as the continued on page 3... Ballot access victories achieved in Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania onths and months of hard work Libertarians. -
APPENDIX T* * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * **************************** * "·"""1
*************************** * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * t* APPENDIX t* * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * **************************** * "·"""1 ~ : , ' • ~.;~\ flbntgomery Cbunty Cbvemmenl ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850 February 28,2014 Montgomery County Council Stella Werner Council Office Building 100 Maryland A venue, 6th Floor Rockvil Ie, Maryland 20850 Dear Councilmembers: Thank you on behalf ofthe entire Right to Vote Task Force for the creation of this effort to evaluate election laws and practices and for our appointment to the Task Force. Since being appointed on November 26,2013 the full Task Force has met for more than 6 hours to initially discuss the Actions assigned, assess topics associated with the Actions, and divide the workload across all members. This document is the interim report requested for delivery on February 28, 2014 on our progress to date and the Task Force is on track to complete a final report due by May 31, 2014. We have organized ourselves into three subcommittees to focus on the tasks assigned, with each subcommittee having from four to five members. These subcommittees meet on a weekly or biweekly basis until the final report is ready for delivery. The subcommittees are: Registration: This subcommittee is recommending changes that would increase voter participation, developing plans to promote same-day registration and recommendations to Council to strengthen such efforts, evaluate and make recommendations on high school voter registration efforts. The subcommittee is also evaluating whether the General Assembly should allow automatic voter registration or other 'opt-in' approaches to registration. Access: This subcommittee is evaluating voter education programs and plans to promote early voting. Voting Rights: This subcommittee is reviewing local laws and practices that may affect the right to vote and will be recommending changes that would strengthen the right to vote in the county. -
Eihibitll United Progreuivei for Victory Pren and Media
NH fl O O O Eihibitll United Progreuivei for Victory Pren and Media. Homt * Who We Are ' Get Involved ' Get Informed ' Press & Media Media Contecte Press contact PRESSQUPF un AIAMC. K1 ORGANIZATION: DM PHONE: SubmaOmry j RepofleShwlle^ O AaPiQgreaaheaPaaartllBClBr.Riglftttnip October 28,2004 WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader has received mom ttwi $125,000 from GOP dorwrs and consultants Jr^^ Veterans for Truth a larger figure than previously reported, United Progressives for Victory said today. UPfofVtatory.com's teteat research draws on press lapoito art Fadanri Electim CommMm tuiKflxibutMmeoe by the GOP in drculaUng arid defending Nao^ • 8wHI Boat Vaterana far Nader? Eight donors to trie Wanwjs Swift Boat Vtetenvm tor Truth 527, who have given $3^ Kenya military service, neve ateo given Nader $11.250. [FEC] • rao^^nu. Corporate SuppOftFto of the lafgertd targeted moderate RapuHcana, have given $7,500 to Nadar. They nave grven $450,000 to trie Club for Growth in the past I cydes. Seven contributors to tr*Pro-Giow» Action Teem, sr^^ [FEC] i Stave Werk raised $30.000 for Choices for America, a group that paid for aignatui Neder^ ballot effort in Nevada. [Las Vegas Review Journal, B/2&VD4] m New Hampshire, Republican consultant David Carney, htov^ ami his bustoessassm to Nader to cover the coat of petition gathering that Can»*MHBtedonNadartbarwlf.TI^ in George H.W. Bush's White House, responsible for 3 out of every 6 o^tara that ntedarraiaad in tnaGianlte State. In MUfgan, lha Rapubiein party made a S3.4W iri« baaot them after the RapubVcane turned in 46,000 signatures foe Wm end vi^ent to court for him. -
Decoding the “Sphinx-Like Silence”: State Residency, Petition Circulation, and the First Amendment
DECODING THE “SPHINX-LIKE SILENCE”: STATE RESIDENCY, PETITION CIRCULATION, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT Ryan A. Partelow* State governments are the primary regulators of elections and ballot access in the United States. State statutes determine who is eligible to be on the ballot in each particular state, as well as who may assist these individuals by gathering petition signatures. Candidates for political office, initiative proponents, and their supporters have challenged some of these restrictions as unconstitutional burdens on political speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has had great difficulty in articulating a coherent standard of review in this area of the law, which shows that the line between a state’s reasonable regulation of the election process and an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights is not easy to define. One particular area where this issue has come into focus is state laws requiring petition circulators to be state residents or, alternatively, eligible to vote in the state. The majority of circuits have declared these restrictions unconstitutional burdens on political speech, while one circuit has found them a reasonable regulation of a state’s electoral process. This Note explores the history and context of the Supreme Court’s struggle to establish a consistent standard of review in ballot-access cases before examining the nuances of the constitutionality of both residency and voter eligibility requirements. This Note ultimately argues that the minority view is the more correct reading of Supreme Court precedent and that residency requirements are generally reasonable state regulations of elections, while voter eligibility requirements are unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment. -
Democracy Diminished: State and Local Threats to Voting Post-Shelby
DEMOCRACY DIMINISHED AS OF JUNE 22, 2021 State and Local Threats to Voting Post Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder 1 naacpldf.org above: A supporter of the Voting Rights Act rallies in the South Carolina State House on February 26, 2013 in Columbia, South Carolina. Photo by Richard Ellis/Getty Images DEMOCRACY DIMINISHED above inset left: Photo by William Lovelace/Express/Getty Images above inset right: Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Image Introduction For nearly 50 years, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Alaskan Native voters from racial discrimination in (VRA) required certain jurisdictions (including states, voting in the states and localities—mostly in the South— counties, cities, and towns) with a history of chronic with a history of the most entrenched and adaptive racial discrimination in voting to submit all proposed forms of racial discrimination in voting. Section 5 placed voting changes to the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. the burden of proof, time, and expense1 on the covered DOJ) or a federal court in Washington, D.C. for pre- state or locality to demonstrate that a proposed voting approval. This requirement is commonly known as change was not discriminatory before that change went “preclearance.” into effect and could harm vulnerable populations. Section 5 preclearance served as our democracy’s Section 4(b) of the VRA, the coverage provision, discrimination checkpoint by halting discriminatory authorized Congress to determine which jurisdictions voting changes before they were implemented. It should be “covered” and, thus, were required to seek protected Black, Latinx, Asian, Native American, and preclearance. Preclearance applied to nine states 1 naacpldf.org DEMOCRACY DIMINISHED (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) and a number of counties, cities, and towns in six partially covered states (California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota). -
Supreme Court Continues Record of Hostility to Minor Parties
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. • 1444 Duke St. • Alexandria, VA 22314 • Phone: (202) 333-0008 • Fax: (202) 333-0072 www.LP.org November 2015 Supreme Court continues record of hostility to minor parties and independent candidates Excerpted from The Hill ing all candidates for state office to be test- in both those instances, the two major par- by Richard Winger ed for illegal drugs. ties were also in the case on the same side Published on Oct. 16, 2015 Setting aside that exception, there are as the minor parties. But when minor par- now 54 examples when minor parties and ties or independent candidates are alone in mong the 50 most populous countries, independent candidates asked for help bringing the case, and don’t have the Dem- Athe United States and Nigeria are the from the court, and were refused, during ocratic or Republican Parties as co-plain- only nations in the world with exactly two the period from 1992 to the present. tiffs, since June 1992, they have always political parties represented in the national lost in the U.S. Supreme Court. legislative body. Election laws and debate The presidential On Oct. 13, 2015, the court did it again. practices in the United States make it ex- It refused to hear a California case that, in tremely difficult, almost impossible, for the debates are, in practice, bars virtually all candidates who voters to launch a new major party. Con- practice, limited to are not Democrats or Republicans from sequently, in election after election, there the November ballot. The case, Rubin v. -
Wordstar Keyboard Template for MS Word 97
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed December 22, 2016 - Case No. 2016-1863 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE ex rel. FOCKLER, et al., Relators, V. CASE NO. 2016-1863 ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS HUSTED, Respondent. RELATORS' SUPREME COURT PRACTICE RULE 12.02(B)(1) ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE WRIT Mark R. Brown Halli Watson Bar No. 81941 Associate Attorney General 303 E. Broad Street Ohio Attorney General's Office Columbus, OH 43215 30 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor (614) 236-6590 Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 236-6956 (fax) (614) 644-7649 [email protected] (614) 728-7592 (fax) [email protected] Counsel of Record for Relators Attorney for Respondent 1 Supreme Court Rule of Practice 12.02(B)(1) states that Complaints in Original actions "may be accompanied by a memorandum in support of the writ." Relators respectfully file this accompanying Memorandum in Support of their right to an emergency Writ of Mandamus. FACTS AND PROCEDURE Relators are five electors who nominated Gary Johnson and William Weld for President and Vice-President, respectively. Relators accordingly allege in their Verified Complaint that they constitute a requisite "group of voters" within the meaning of R.C. § 3517.01(A)(1). Respondent, Jon Husted, is the Ohio Secretary of State who pursuant to R.C. § 3501.04 is the chief elections officer in Ohio charged with administering Ohio's Election Law. On August 10, 2016, Relators properly nominated two "place holders," Charles Earl and Kenneth Moellman for President and Vice-President, respectively, with the intention of substituting Gary Johnson and William Weld as candidates for President and Vice-President, respectively, under R.C. -
Does the Constitution Provide More Ballot Access Protection for Presidential Elections Than for U.S
Fordham Law Review Volume 85 Issue 3 Article 8 2016 Does the Constitution Provide More Ballot Access Protection for Presidential Elections Than for U.S. House Elections? Richard Winger Ballot Access News Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Election Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Richard Winger, Does the Constitution Provide More Ballot Access Protection for Presidential Elections Than for U.S. House Elections?, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 1113 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss3/8 This Colloquium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOES THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDE MORE BALLOT ACCESS PROTECTION FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS THAN FOR U.S. HOUSE ELECTIONS? Richard Winger* INTRODUCTION Both the U.S. Constitution and The Federalist Papers suggest that voters ought to have more freedom to vote for the candidate of their choice for the U.S. House of Representatives than they do for the President or the U.S. Senate.1 Yet, strangely, for the last thirty-three years, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled that the Constitution gives voters more freedom to vote for the candidate of their choice in presidential elections than in congressional elections.2 Also, state legislatures, which have been writing ballot access laws since 1888,3 have passed laws that make it easier for minor-party and independent candidates to get on the ballot for President than for the U.S. -
Libertarians See Democrat, GOP Woes As Chance to Shine
http://gazette.com/libertarians-see-democrat-gop-woes-as-chance-to-shine/article/1580043 Libertarians see Democrat, GOP woes as chance to shine By: Megan Schrader July 10, 2016 Updated: July 11, 2016 at 7:37 pm Loyal Libertarians across the nation hope this could be the year for a speck of gold on an electoral college map that for almost the past five decades has been red for Republicans and blue for Democrats. "To break the stranglehold of the two-party system, it's going to take a situation where we couldn't possibly predict, where all of a sudden people are going to be extraordinarily unhappy and want to jump ship," said Caryn Ann Harlos, communications director for the Colorado Libertarian Party. "It's a long time to November. The stars could align even more. Am I a dreamer? I think you've got to be a little bit of an ideological dreamer to be in a third party." The stars aligning for Harlos, and others, include the nomination of New Mexico's former Republican Gov. Gary Johnson for president and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld for vice president at a time when the Republican and Democratic nominees are struggling with their own demons. A video on the Johnson Weld campaign website cleverly bills the duo: "A credible alternative to Clintrump." "We've been working on this party for 45 years this December, building it up," said Libertarian Party Chairman Nicholas Sarwark. "We've done the work over the decades to attract candidates of the stature of Gov. -
RALPH NADER RADIO HIOUR EP 242 TRANSCRIPT Jamie Raskin, Richard Winger Steve Skrovan: Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. My
RALPH NADER RADIO HIOUR EP 242 TRANSCRIPT Jamie Raskin, Richard Winger Steve Skrovan: Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. My name is Steve Skrovan along with my co-host David Feldman. Welcome back, David, from your technical difficulties. David Feldman: Well, speaking of technical difficulties, I've already voted early for Elizabeth Warren for 2020. Got that of the way. Steve Skrovan: That's may be too early. Ralph Nader: It's a little too early. Steve Skrovan: Okay. So it's hard. This is so complicated, David and I know it's a little above you. And we also have the man of the hour, Ralph Nader. Hello, Ralph. Ralph Nader: Hello. We're going to talk about living wages and why the Democrats aren't pushing it in an emblazoned way all over the country before the election. Steve Skrovan: That’s right and we're going to talk about that in the context of the midterm elections coming up. And we're going to come at it from two different angels on today's show. First, we welcome back Congressman and Constitutional Scholar Jamie Raskin, who is running for re-election in Maryland's 8th District. And we hope he will give us sort of an inside the Thunderdome view of what could happen if the Democrats take back the house and what to expect if they don’t. Then our second guest is one of the foremost experts on election law in the United States. His name is Richard Winger and he’s the Editor of Ballot Access News, which is a monthly newsletter that watchdogs not only individual voting rights, but also the rights of third parties to get on ballots.