Replies

I’m not certain if you and I are saying the same thing, just using different phraseology or not, but the Georgia Superior Court granted Obama’s attorney’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the political parties alone control whose names are allowed on primary election ballots and the Court also ruled that in the general election, you can challenge a candidate’s electors with a ballot challenge because that’s who the voters are actually casting their ballots for.

We weren't saying the same things at all. Some states don't allow for appeals of a SOS's decision for allowing a party to be on a ballot after a hearing has been held. In Georgia, appeals are allowed, but the law certainly does NOT grant sole power to control names on primary election ballot over to the political parties. First, candidates still have to be eligible for office:

Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

Second, the SOS has statutory authority to challenge and remove any name AND to hear challenges from any voter:

The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.

- - -

Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering.

Feel free to provide some actual direct quotes from the Georgia Superior Court. I suspect all they did was sweep this under the rug instead of giving it a fair review. The ALJ's decison was not based on ANY actual legal precedent. The appeal may not have explained specifically how the ALJ's decision lacked precedence, or the Superior Court may have simply seen the ALJ as giving nothing more than an advisory opinion and simply allowed that the SOS made a decision without determining any basis in fact or law.