Did the Constitution Party qualify for a ballot line in November?

The Constitution Party of North Carolina ^ | May 5, 2022 | Dr. Franklin

[Dr. Franklin]

Does anyone know if the Constitution Party of NC qualified for ballot access for November?

If so, maybe Madison Cawthorn could run for reelection to Congress with the Constitution Party?

[Repeal The 17th]

“...Does anyone know...”
-
No.
No one knows.

[KC Burke]

He should scorn being a spoiler and take his loss like an adult.

[Dr. Franklin]

No. No one knows.

So you are anyone? Thanks!

Whatever happened hasn't been reported. So, it's hard for anyone to know...

[Dr. Franklin]

He should scorn being a spoiler and take his loss like an adult.

Just like Joe Biden did, right?

[TBP]

I wrote tehm and asked. When I get a response, I’ll let you know.

[higgmeister]

To what end?

[BobL]

“To what end?”

Split the Republican vote, so that the Democrat gets the seat. You see, we win by giving the Democrats more power to destroy our lives and those of our kids. Or something like that.

[House Atreides]

“He should scorn being a spoiler and take his loss like an adult.”
*******************************************
Absolutely. The kid can have a good future but he has to put childish things behind him.

[TexasGurl24]

NC has a sore loser law. The Constitution Party didn’t come close to getting ballot access.

The OPs fan fiction isn’t going to happen.

[Dr. Franklin]

To what end?

Removing the RINOs from a MAGA Republican Party. Election integrity is the single most important issue of the day. Cawthorn stood up to challenge fraudulent electors from the 2020 Big Steal. We need to continue to support him, not roll over and support the RINO trying to steal his seat.

[Dr. Franklin]

NC has a sore loser law. The Constitution Party didn’t come close to getting ballot access.

We are still waiting to hear if the Constitution Party got enough signature to have a ballot line in November. Even if they didn't, they can still file to have their write in ballots counted, which would likely mean hand counted ballots. Parties have a constitutional right to nominate anyone they choose. In such cases, "sore loser laws" are constitutionally null and void.

[DoodleDawg]

He should scorn being a spoiler and take his loss like an adult.

When has he ever acted as an adult?

[DoodleDawg]

Removing the RINOs from a MAGA Republican Party. Election integrity is the single most important issue of the day. Cawthorn stood up to challenge fraudulent electors from the 2020 Big Steal. We need to continue to support him, not roll over and support the RINO trying to steal his seat.

Surely there is a candidate in North Carolina capable of doing all that who is not also an immature moron?

[x]

It's not hard to find out.

The Constitution and Green Parties lost their place on the ballot after the last presidential election. There is a petition going for the Constitution Party to get it back.

Takes less than a minute to find out, but maybe you are trying to get something going for Cawthorne. I think he needs to take a decade or so off, do something constructive, and grow up.

[Dr. Franklin]

It's not hard to find out. The Constitution and Green Parties lost their place on the ballot after the last presidential election. There is a petition going for the Constitution Party to get it back. Takes less than a minute to find out, but maybe you are trying to get something going for Cawthorne. I think he needs to take a decade or so off, do something constructive, and grow up.

By statute, the Constitution or other minor parties have until June 1st to petition to be recognized for the November elections:
§ 163-96. "Political party" defined; creation of new party.

So the process is continuing and time has not yet expired for the Constitution Party to appear on the November ballot. According to that statute, they need to get "one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the total number of voters who voted in the most recent general election for Governor."

Cawthorn still has a path to retain his seat. If Lisa Murkowska could win as a write in, why not Cawthorn?

[TexasGurl24]

I’m not sure why you continue to lie and pretend to be what you are not.

The courts have made clear that is is beyond dispute that States legislatures can enact a disaffiliation or “sore loser law” constitutionally. See, e.g., Backus v. Spears, 677 F.2d 397, 399 (4th Cir. 1982) (”Under Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974), South Carolina certainly has the power, as a permissible adjunct to promoting orderly primary elections, to forbid petition candidacies by persons who have been defeated in party primaries.”); Storer, 415 U.S. at 736.

See also:

Libertarian Party of Mich. v. Johnson, 714 F.3d 929, 930 (6th Cir. 2013).

De La Fuente v. Merrill, No. 2:16-CV-755-WKW, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139569, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 30, 2017).

State ex rel. Blankenship v. Warner, 241 W. Va. 362, 363, 825 S.E.2d 309, 312 (2018).

While RETROACTIVELY applying a sore-loser law can be problematic (ie candidates who were accepted to be placed on the ballot, could constitutionally challenge the burden of a newly-enacted statutory requirement as retroactively applied to them) Poindexter v. Strach, 324 F. Supp. 3d 625, 632 (E.D.N.C. 2018), prospective application of such a standard, as would be the case in your fan fiction, is NOT. Even in Poindexter, ALL parties agreed that prospective application was well within a State’s Constitutional authority.

You can stomp your feet, pontificate, scream, cry and moan, but the final result will be that Cawthorne will not be appearing on any ballot for Congress in North Carolina in November.

Chuck Edwards is going to win NC-11 and there is nothing that you can do about it.

:-)

[Dr. Franklin]

While RETROACTIVELY applying a sore-loser law can be problematic (ie candidates who were accepted to be placed on the ballot, could constitutionally challenge the burden of a newly-enacted statutory requirement as retroactively applied to them) Poindexter v. Strach, 324 F. Supp. 3d 625, 632 (E.D.N.C. 2018), prospective application of such a standard, as would be the case in your fan fiction, is NOT. Even in Poindexter, ALL parties agreed that prospective application was well within a State’s Constitutional authority.

Ah, but as in Poindexter, the Constitution Party is presently not a legally recognized political party in NC. It will be legally recognized if it files enough signatures by June 1st. So, the same scenario would repeat itself if it were to submit the required number of signatures to qualify, AND it would decide to nominate Cawthorn. We can expect the same result.

You can stomp your feet, pontificate, scream, cry and moan, but the final result will be that Cawthorne will not be appearing on any ballot for Congress in North Carolina in November.

Well the Constitution Party, or any other minor party like the Libertarians may not nominate Cawthorn. That's their choice not yours. Perhaps they think they have a stronger candidate than the sitting Congressman?

Chuck Edwards is going to win NC-11 and there is nothing that you can do about it.

If enough MAGA folks refuse to elect RINOs, Edwards won't win.

:-)

;-)

[TexasGurl24]

LOL!

That wasn't the issue in Poindexter. After the Constitution Party was recognized and held its nominating convention, they submitted Poindexter, Jones and Holt as candidates to the State Board and they were accepted and certified.

But THEN, after the certification, the General Assembly passed a “sore loser” law preventing anyone who lost in a primary election from being on the ballot that November.

The law has been on the books for a while now. All of the parties agreed (and case law is clear) that if the law had been in effect PRIOR (like it is now), then there wouldn't have been an issue.

You claimed (falsely) that sore loser laws are always Constitutional. (They aren't) and the Poindexter scenario wouldn't happen this time, because the law is already on the books.

Regardless, this is all your fan fiction. The CP won't be on the ballot. Neither will Cawthorne.

Edwards is going to win in a walk, and I'll laugh at your futile attempts to stop it.

[Dr. Franklin]

You claimed (falsely) that sore loser laws are always Constitutional. (They aren't) and the Poindexter scenario wouldn't happen this time, because the law is already on the books.

Elections are how we regulate our government. Originally, the creation of new parties was considered an extension of freedom of the press. People printed their preferences on a ballot and brought to the polling station and dropped it in the ballot box, and such ballots were later counted by hand by the election judges. The need for the government to regulate who can print a ballot depends on the need to have machines, and now computers, run the elections. As with many things in the modern U.S., the government's desire to control things and limit ballot access, is constitutionally dubious at best, a modern anomaly contrary to the historical record.

FYI, the Judge Flanagan noted that the state "offered no argument or evidence of injury to the rights of voters or the state of North Carolina" if the plaintiff were to appear on the ballot as the candidate for the Constitution Party. Limiting ballot access for candidates of a political party is not consistent with free and fair elections, which are in short supply in a country that rigged the 2020 elections.