Posted on 07/25/2026 3:25:21 PM PDT by DFG
Maine has a "sore loser" law that says a candidate that runs for one office and loses cannot run for another office in the same cycle. After Graham Platner dropped out, Maine Dems are poised to nominate Troy Jackson. But Jackson ran for Governor (and lost the primary). Eligible?
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Democrats are not subject to either State or Federal laws. I bet he is allowed to run.
The Secretary of State Shenna Bellows will conclude that the law does not apply to Democrats, so Troy Jackson will be permitted to run.
There are some interesting articles coming out about Troy-drunk with power as Senate President, he became a thug.
The Maine nazi should run against Horizontal and/or the socialist bartender.
What else is a professional politician gonna do?
Didn't stop 0bama
That law violates the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution says that States make up their own election laws.
Other states have “sore loser” laws which typically prevents losing candidates from running as Indenpendents or on another party (ie libertarian) line. Site me the Maine Supreme Court or USSC decision which nullifies these laws? There isn’t one so for now these laws are constitutional. Furthermore, since the constitution allows states to run their own elections I highly doubt they would intervene in ruling this law unconstitutional. The real question is when the highly conflicted Mains SOS (you know the one who ruled Trump ineligible for the Maine ballot) violates their own laws will the Supreme court jump in?
LAWS SCHMAWS!!! Laws are for Republicans!!
Eligible? Yes because he’s a Lib and it’s all about me, F the law!
To what extent can and ever does the US Supreme Court insert themselves in a case or situation solo, or must it be in response to a request and lawsuit filed by opposing parties, WITH STANDING, as defined by them?
doesn’t matter if not eligible, they will make a way.
Did Republicans show outrage when Frank Lautenberg was allowed to run in place of Disgraced candidiate Bob Toricelli at the last second before voting and in total disregard to existing election laws in the state? Or did they mildly pretend indignation with no follow up in court and daily public opinion?
Too bad Alaska didn’t have these laws as Murkowski lost the primary but then won as an independent.
She won as a Republican, but also as a write-in that was not on the ballot. Their law not only allowed a losing candidate to run as a write-in, but also as a member of their party and labeled them as their party label on the list of write-in candidates.
Very strange laws up there...even more strange now.
Yes, but the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the law did should not apply because it would “disenfranchise voters.”
That’s even weirder she won as a write-in candidate like you’d see other write in candidates like Deez Nutz and Mickey Mouse.
States may regulate how elections are held but may not add requirements for federal offices that are not in the U.S. Constitution. See U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, a SCOTUS case from 1995.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
