Replies

Two duplicate threads came after this one. I’ve requested that they be suspended.

Here’s my take:

McDaniel Campaign confirms that a write-in campaign is not off the table.
I’ve posted my research that federal courts treat seekers of federal office different than state courts do and federal case law highly favors substantial candidates seeking federal office.

Although MS has ‘sore loser’ laws on its books, federal courts have in the past overruled states in every instance where a credible substantial candidate seeks to file as an independent past state deadlines or is denied ballot access as a write-in candidate.

The crux of federal rulings is the issue of disenfranchising large numbers of voters from having an opportunity to elect the person they think best represents them in federal office. In this case there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of voters who voted for Chris McDaniel in his campaign to be elected as US Senator.

The McDaniel campaign will not seek to be on the ballot as a write-in or as an independent until MS has denied their challenge to the election which could happen because of the thick corruption in that state and an apparent ‘good old guy’s network’ that seems to be in place everywhere that seems to take direction from the Barbour family members.

If McDaniel loses his bid to overturn the election, he needs only walk a short distance over to the federal courthouse and file for an injunction against MS sore loser laws and within two weeks he can have a federal order issued to the state of MS to allow him onto the ballot for the November election.

He will have plenty of ammunition in federal court to show criminality, vote fraud and conspiracy to be granted a preliminary federal injunction while waiting for the state of MS to make its argument of a ‘compelling state interest’ to deny the injunction request.

What “compelling state interest” is there that MS could argue?

The answer is there are none.

Arguments put forth in the past for support a compelling state interest have focused on the confusion and chaos that too many candidates cause, the burden of managing too many candidates and parties especially those that are not serious and are designed as a protest vote, for example “Daffy Duck” or “Mickey Mouse” as a write-in.

None of the cases on record have arguments that apply to the McDaniel case in denying so many voters the right to elect him as their US Senator.

In my view I wish that an independent or write-in campaign will not be necessary but if it becomes necessary it is easy for the McDaniel campaign to overcome MS election law that would bar him from accessing the November ballot.