If the Trump/Harris debate had been legit, somebody would have invited the Libertarians.
I don’t agree with Libertarianism, but I must respect the determination of its adherents. They’re STILL trying to be a valid Third Party in USA! The Uniparty will rue the day when Libbies give up on peaceful methods, because they clearly aren’t going to give up and go home.
Iowa Supreme Court sides with objection panel decision to kick Libertarians off the ballot
h ttps://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/iowa-supreme-court-sides-with-objection-panel-decision-to-kick-libertarians-off-the-ballot
By Valeree Dunn, 11 September 2024
My only contribution to 9/11 remembrance is a “Today I Found Out” that the Twin Towers had a billion-dollar asbestos problem in addition to way too much insurance. That was a lot of dust all over everything… Perhaps our best bet to defund the Zionists, will be a class action mesothelioma lawsuit. Good news, New Yorkers! If you have breathing trouble then it might not be the Death Jab after all!
You may be entitled to a settlement!
Anyway.
DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Supreme Court has sided with an objection panel's partisan decision to kick Libertarian candidates off the November ballots due to a technicality regarding the party's nominating conventions.
Democracy looks like “you can’t vote for who you want, because obscure technical reasons”.
Republican challengers objected to three Iowa Libertarian congressional candidate's places on the ballots, accusing the party of failing to comply with state law when it comes to nominating candidates by convention.
The requirements were new to Libertarians, who were only just granted major party status in 2022. Libertarians argued they shouldn't be kicked off the ballot over a technicality that they admittedly overlooked.
New to them, but not new to the Establishment parties? Why does the government regulate the internal workings of political parties in the first place? The Man was right, we don’t need a third political party. We need a second one.
The court's decision ends a series of appeals from Libertarian nominees regarding the issue.
The three affected congressional candidates, Marco Battaglia (District 3), Nicholas Gluba (District 1), and Charles Aldrich (District 4), are now planning to run write-in campaigns for the November election.
Without them, the November election’s Libertarian offering will be only two state senators and POTUS candidate Chase Oliver. Hmm… he’s pro-migrant, just like all the other POTUS candidates, and probably holds the sodomite vote. Who else is running, just for curiosity… the No Party’s Shiva Ayyadura candidate is Pajeet, therefore automatically pro-migrant… ooh, he has an antivaxx platform… never mind, he’s Fulbright Scholar. He’s controlled opposition, too.
USA is a Illuminati empire coopted by the Jews, and I won’t pretend otherwise come November.
Republican Secretary of State Paul Pate and Attorney General Brenna Bird both agreed with that challenge, while Democrat State Auditor Rob Sand was the lone dissent on that vote.
“Requiring ‘strict compliance’ with election laws written by a two-party system will no doubt smother opposition and prop up that same broken system,” Auditor Sand said in response the state Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday.
The decision now frees Iowa's Secretary of State to fully certify the state's ballots, a process that was partially put on hold while the court heard the case.
Rob Sand is correct in the short term. In the long term, a new system will inevitably emerge, and I don’t mean BRICS.
I mean Christ Jesus. He is the living proof that Satan will not have the final word. Emphasis on “living”.
So, what was the disqualifying technicality?
h ttps://cbs2iowa.com/resources/pdf/2bb2da42-e645-454d-b15f-3ed01da580e2-IowaSupremeCourtballotdecision.pdf
Under Iowa law, political parties whose candidates received at least 2% of the vote in the previous year’s gubernatorial or presidential elections may apply for official political party status. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 721—21.10. In the 2022 general election, the Libertarian Party candidate for governor received more than 2% of the total vote. The Libertarian Party filed for and was granted status as a qualified political party.
Qualified political parties generally select their general election candidates through a primary election. Iowa law provides, “Candidates of all political parties for all offices which are filled at a regular biennial election by direct vote of the people shall be nominated at a primary election at the time and in the manner directed in this chapter.” Iowa Code § 43.3 (2024).
“Your party is not allowed on the ballot until you get at least 2% of the vote. If you do, then your party must hold a primary election as government requires.”
Iowa holds its primary election on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in June. Id. § 43.7. A congressional candidate qualifies for the primary election by filing nomination papers with the requisite number of signatures no later than 5:00 p.m. on the eighty-first day before the primary election. Id. § 43.11(2). Congressional candidates must file petitions with not less than 1,726 signatures of eligible electors, including at least 47 signatures from each of half of the counties in their respective districts.
“Your primary election must be this big to nominate a candidate.” I see that some Libertarian candidates will be on November’s ballot, but these three districts/candidates will not.
Maybe Iowa is an open-primary state, and the top two winners for each district have a runoff in November.
Segue
h ttps://ballotpedia.org/Primary_elections_in_Iowa
The laws governing primary elections vary from state to state and can even vary within states by locality and political party. For example, only registered party members are allowed to vote in closed primaries, while registered party members and unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote in semi-closed primaries, and all voters are allowed to vote in open primaries.
Section 43.38 of the Iowa Code stipulates that only registered party members can vote in a party's primary. Section 43.42 of the Iowa Code stipulates that a voter may change his or her party affiliation at the polls on primary election day and vote in the primary of a party other than the one to which he or she formerly belonged. For this reason, Iowa's primary is considered open.
That is not an open primary of the type I mean.
End segue
This year, at least one Democratic Party candidate and at least one Republican Party candidate filed nomination papers by the deadline for the offices of United States Representative in Congress for Iowa’s first, third, and fourth congressional districts. No Libertarian candidates filed for those districts.
Iowa law also provides a second path by which a political party may place a candidate on the general election ballot. Specifically, when there is a “vacancy” due to no candidate from that party having filed nomination papers to get on the primary ballot, the party may nominate a candidate. Id. § 43.78. For a congressional race, the nomination must occur at a congressional district convention.
So, these candidates failed twice?
The Libertarian Party collapsed this process somewhat. By its own admission, it conducted precinct caucuses and county conventions on the same day, January 15, 2024. Following those precinct caucuses, the Libertarian Party failed to provide to any county auditor the names of any delegates. See id. § 43.4(4). At that time, i.e., January 15, delegates to the district conventions and state convention were purportedly selected.* Later, on June 8, the party had a state convention where it filled its ballot vacancies for United States Congress by nominating petitioners Nicholas Gluba, Marco Battaglia, and Charles Aldrich…
TL;DR the Libertarians saved time & money by doing all their prickly cactus stuff early in the year, then filed the paperwork at the legally mandated times. This led them to file too late to ALSO meet a sixty-day filing window, AND too early for their delegates to act as delegates. (They can only behave as delegates beginning on the day AFTER they’re confirmed as delegates. Not on the same day. Because shut up.)
I have many objections to Libertarianism, but them using the bureaucracy to trip me up ain’t one of them.
The PDF goes on to address the First Amendment issues of banning political candidates for noncompliance with arbitrary State dictats.
D. First Amendment Arguments. We now turn to whether the Panel’s application of Iowa Code sections 43.24 and 43.94 violates the First Amendment associational rights of Gluba, Battaglia, and Aldrich or the Libertarian Party. Two distinct but related concepts are at issue here.
The first is the notion that candidates with a certain level of support should have a right of access to the general election ballot. Yet that right has limits. The United States Supreme Court has held that states have an “undoubted right to require candidates to make a preliminary showing of substantial support in order to qualify for a place on the ballot…
The Libbies satisfied that in the form of the 2% vote the previous election cycle.
States, for example, may even ban write-in voting under certain conditions. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 441 (1992).
Was that a political threat by government officials?
The second notion is that political parties should have a right to associate and govern their internal affairs as they see fit…
Yes.
But this right also has limits.
“File by the deadline for ballot access”, yes. “Hold multiple, weeklong media circuses to do what competent people can do in a single day”, no.
The Uniparty needs those multiple meetings in order to fit in all the lucrative horse-trading and crony capitalism that motivates those Congressional liches to spend millions of dollars for jobs that, officially, pay a tenth of that. They know we know this, but as I’ve said before, what can they do… be honest about betraying us for cash and prizes?
They will never tell the truth because they hate the truth. It makes them look really, really bad.
The Panel’s ruling does not affect the Libertarian Party’s ability to convey its message to the voters of Iowa, to make endorsements, to associate only with individuals it wants to associate with, or even to determine its own governance structure. The only effect of the Panel’s application of sections 43.24 and 43.94 is to require the party to go through a more formal nomination process with clearly separate precinct caucuses and county conventions as its backup mechanism for selecting candidates in the event no candidate files for nomination by primary.
Thereby imposing artificial burdens of time and money that the Uniparty won’t suffer, because for no reason at all, it’s already structured exactly as the law demands. Maybe that’s not a violation of free association after all. Maybe it’s a violation of due process and equality before the law… the REAL American principle of “equality”.
Not “we are all cat-eating Haitian Voodoo Communists now.”
The Supreme Court has said, “We have considered it ‘too plain for argument,’ for example, that a State may require parties to use the primary format for selecting their nominees, in order to assure that intraparty competition is resolved in a democratic fashion”…
If it’s too plain for argument that a state could require the Libertarian Party to select its candidates only by primary, it follows that the state may prescribe the format of the caucus convention process that it allows the party to use as an alternative.
Yo’ Mama is too plain an argument for prostitution.
They won’t hear our grievances, they won’t allow us peaceful alternatives and there’s nowhere to run. One wonders what options remain.
This is only one of the reasons I refuse to participate, and I don't consent to being "governed" by these people.
I have only one Lord!