ShivaX
5267
I’d say the fees are worse. Signatures seems a fair limitation to keep every one from signing up and having a ballot that’s 200 pages long and there is probably historical precedent for it.
magnet
5268
Why should I need any signatures at all?
Strollen
5269
it is a fair point, but I’m pretty sure there is precedent on why one is ok and the tax returns aren’t.
magnet
5270
Precedent just means “someone already brought this up.”
Nobody has brought up tax returns before, because it wasn’t necessary. In other words, there is no precedent that tax returns shouldn’t be required, either.
Strollen
5271
Clearly there is an issue with having 200 page ballots. Especially in the days before Xerox machines and electronic printers, so there is a benefit to restricting ballot access to those who can show some level of support.
Menzo
5272
There are a couple Supreme Court precedents that basically invalidate state-level requirements for signatures and filing deadlines.
More info here -
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
Williams v. Rhodes
See also: Williams v. Rhodes
The American Independent Party and the Socialist Labor Party sought ballot access in Ohio for the 1968 presidential election. At the time, Ohio state law required the candidate’s political party to obtain voter signatures totaling 15 percent of the number of ballots cast in the preceding election for governor. The American Independent Party obtained the required number of signatures but did not file its petition prior to the stated deadline. The Socialist Labor Party did not collect the requisite signatures. Consequently, both parties were denied placement on the ballot. The two parties filed separate suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against a variety of state officials, including then-Governor James Rhodes.[27][28]
On October 15, 1968, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Williams v. Rhodes that the state laws in dispute were “invidiously discriminatory” and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they gave “the two old, established parties a decided advantage over new parties.” The court also ruled that the challenged laws restricted the right of individuals “to associate for the advancement of political beliefs” and “to cast their votes effectively.” The court further ruled that Ohio showed no “compelling interest” to justify these restrictive practices and ordered the state to place the American Independent Party’s candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the ballot. The court did not require the state to place the Socialist Labor Party’s candidates for the same offices on the ballot.[27][28]
Anderson v. Celebrezze
John Anderson
See also: Anderson v. Celebrezze
An Ohio statute required independent presidential candidates to file statements of candidacy and nominating petitions in March in order to qualify to appear on the general election ballot in November. Independent candidate John Anderson announced his candidacy for president in April 1980, and all requisite paperwork was submitted on May 16, 1980. The Ohio secretary of state, Anthony J. Celebrezze, refused to accept the documents.[29][30]
Anderson and his supporters filed an action challenging the constitutionality of the aforementioned statute on May 19, 1980, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The district court ruled in Anderson’s favor and ordered Celebrezze to place Anderson’s name on the ballot. Celebrezze appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals, which ultimately overturned the district court’s ruling (the election took place while this appeal was pending).[29][30]
On April 19, 1983, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the appeals court’s ruling, maintaining that Ohio’s early filing deadline indeed violated the voting and associational rights of Anderson’s supporters.[29][30]
It seems to me that a pretty arbitrary requirement like tax returns would not survive a Supreme Court challenge. I believe that, among other reasons, the Justices would argue that voters can and should decide if seeing a candidate’s tax returns is important or not.
I personally believe that voters should care, but clearly in 2016 they did not. Perhaps this means everyone should stop revealing their tax returns. Certainly for Clinton it didn’t help, and it gave Republicans some ammo to talk about things like book deals and other stuff (I think).
I totally forgot he was still running :P
Has anyone made the October debate stage yet who hadn’t made the September one?
Bennet is making a push with early advertising blitzes in Iowa.
But…no.
I can envision that by the time the Iowa Caucuses happen, the Democratic field size won’t be that much different from 2004, with 6-8 candidates who hit at least 1-3%, and only 3-5 above 15% when those caucus totals come in.
Ooh! We’re getting a Des Moines Register/Anne Selzer poll of Iowa tomorrow. Neat!
They polled me last week, I have never been polled before.
CraigM
5278
Neat! I got polled about 4-5 times in the run up to 2016. Once by what I suspect was a RNC funded group. I enjoyed fucking with them.
Then election day happened. Granted Illinois was not relevant, but still.
Strollen
5279
Tom Steyer did there will be at least 11. Evidently Tulsi and Marianne are a couple of polls short of making it so they have shot.
Cory Booker somehow has an internal memo “leaked” to NBC News that unless his campaign can raise $1.7m before the September 30 Q3 deadline, his campaign has “no path forward.”
Booker then acknowledges the memo is legit, claims that this is no fundraising stunt, and proceeds to…use it as a fundraising stunt. Bets: Booker will raise that $1.7m after all. It’s a September miracle!
Warren is a world class retail politician. I’m not sure why no one seems to have realized that before now.
The times I’ve watched her speak she’s been cogent, inspiring, and fucking super right about shit. I don’t understand any of the qualms about her aside from age. Warren’s pretty fantastic.
Oghier
5285
I think it’s because so much of the press coverage focused, not on Warren, but on stuff Trump and other Republicans said about Warren. The Pocahontas crap got more airtime than the CPFB, and she’s portrayed as an elititst Harvard Professor rather than a middle-class kid from Oklahoma. Just another reminder that the press sucks.
When she has a chance to frame her own presentations – such as in the debates, at town halls, etc – she’s fantastic. You’re right, she’s a terrific retail politician. I think she wins Iowa and NH.
I’m not sure she can win in New Hampshire, but I’m cautiously optimistic about Iowa. The big thing I will be looking for with regards to her is her Q3 fundraising totals. It’d be great if that’s gone up along with her profile. Because, yeah, she’s been great. I’d be thrilled to have her as the nominee.
And regarding the trajectory of her campaign: I think it actually worked pretty well for her. First big candidate in, lots of scrutiny and skeptical - to - negative press…bigger candidates jumped in, and she’s steadily climbed through and passed the rest of the field over the last 7 months. Creates a great narrative for political hacks to write about.
The one thing that I’d worry about with her is that there appear to be some Jacobin Democrats who are vehemently anti-Warren. They view her as a fake progressive opportunist whose only ideas are ones she stole from their preferred candidate. Here’s hoping that all involved tamp things down a bit, since the goals are the same and to beat Biden, the progressive wing is going to need to consolidate pretty quickly around one candidate or the other, whomever it is.
