Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GregoryFul

If the candidates name is not on the ballot, that pretty well cinches it up. And if five or so states have that requirement — that a candidate cannot be places on the ballot or else his name cannot be on the ballot — then you’ve got a strangle-hold on that candidate, if they decide not to comply...

And so far, we’ve seen Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Arizona start on that process.... I’ve followed the one in Oklahoma....


431 posted on 08/01/2009 9:22:21 PM PDT by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies ]


To: Star Traveler

“The New Jersey Republican Party challenged the replacement of Torricelli’s name on the ballot with Lautenberg’s, arguing that it came too late according to state election laws. The ballot name change was unanimously upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court,[5] and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case. Lautenberg won the election, defeating his Republican challenger, businessman Doug Forrester, by 54% to 44%. That victory made Lautenberg one of very few who in recent times returned to the Senate after leaving it.”

- so much for “law”, the plain and apparent facts do not apply to the politicians anymore.


479 posted on 08/02/2009 4:04:35 AM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson