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

To: Cboldt

YES

Latest article found says that in NJ CRUZ must prove he is eligible not that we have to prove he is not. I remember you pointing that out to me before but this article brought it home and may help others understand where we are
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/04/new-jersey-forcing-cruz-to-prove-eligibility/


149 posted on 04/11/2016 10:21:19 AM PDT by hoosiermama (1240 (a couple extra to boot) Under budget. Ahead of schedule! Go TRUMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]


To: hoosiermama
-- Latest article found says that in NJ CRUZ must prove he is eligible not that we have to prove he is not. --

I think that is just the editor's headline prerogative speaking, and doesn't necessarily reflect the legal presumptions.

I haven't found any of the filings in that case, and also haven't studied NJ election law and ballot objection law, but the usual course is that the "application" for ballot access is presumed true, which shifts the burden to opponents to produce contrary evidence.

Williams has produced contrary evidence, Cruz's Canadian BC. At that point, the case looks like all the others. The Sec. of State can decline to rule on the merits for various reasons (Cruz's lawyer will cover those bases very well), or can rule on the merits after considering arguments from both sides.

160 posted on 04/11/2016 10:37:37 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

To: hoosiermama; Whenifhow; LucyT

Thanks hoosiermama!

Ping!


175 posted on 04/11/2016 11:25:14 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | 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