Something that I do not understand is what obligation does the law, or the constitution, have to any one particular political party? Obviously if one party's candidates was intentionally denied access to the ballot, then that would be obstructing the people's right to choose in an election. But if one party follows the law and the process that the party chooses to nominate a candidate for office who later drops out isn't that just that party's tough luck?
Why does the state have to insure that a particular party even has anyone on the ballot? As many have posted, often a race has only one candidate who runs unopposed. In those cases, should the state name a candidate even if it's against that person's wishes, in the name of electoral "competitiveness"? It's nuts!
But if one party follows the law and the process that the party chooses to nominate a candidate for office who later drops out isn't that just that party's tough luck? Interesting point. But the Dems and Reps get special treatment in our "Two Party" system.
Imagine if a Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Green, etc. candidate dropped out like this. I don't think they would get these breaks.
well, i guess it shows the importance of state races that affect situations as appointing judges (not that christinetoddwhitman helped at all)