Sorry, but you haven’t done anything to my argument, i.e., a law is a law that needs to be followed until changed. No one has taken issue with it before in its entire history. I understand that you don’t like the outcome here. But that’s not outcome determinative. The law was applied equally here, and your guy (which one of the five I don’t know) came up short. Too bad for you, but it has no impact on whether the law has application here. Your nukes are but mosquitoes buzzing around my ear.
>>> a law is a law that needs to be followed until changed. No one has taken issue with it before in its entire history. >>>
Sooooo many problems with what you say.
First, the “entire history” - puh leeze. This is the FIRST cycle where any signatures have been thrown out. Second, this is only the SECOND cycle where it applied (04 there was no primary). So that’s a stupid argument on your part, the “entire history.” Really.
Second, the notion that laws need to be followed regardless of how stupid they are until changed misses the point on so many levels. First, laws are almost always changed AFTER someone is agrieved by them and almost NEVER changed until then. So you show an incredible lack of history here. Second, this law is not being applied AS NEVER APPLIED before meaning it is on shaky legal grounds itself. And third, the law is arbitrary and counter productive. Conservative, of which you are clearly NOT one, never stand up for such laws.