Forum
- Home
- Forum
Notifications
Clear all
This Just In
18
Posts
9
Users
0
Reactions
1,150
Views
Topic starter
I found this on google "Glenn Miller White Patriot Party". It repeats exactly what I've said all along. The Missouri Secretary of State has absolutely no legal right to deny me ballot access.
State statute 115.357 states: "No candidate's name shall be printed on any official ballot until the required fee has been paid."
That one single sentence is the law the SOS is using to deny me ballot access. But as simple english proves, it gives her no such legal right, since I did, in fact, pay the required fee and I have the receipt to prove it.
The only question now is what action I should take to insure the SOS complies with the law by printing my name on the August 8, 2006 ballot as a candidate for U.S. Congress. Any suggestions ???
St. Louis Oracle
St. Louis-based political forecasting plus commentary on politics and events from a grassroots veteran with a mature, progressive anti-establishment perspective.
About Me
Name:St. Louis Oracle Location:Saint Louis, Missouri, United States The author of this blog has been a political junkie in St. Louis for over 50 years and is actively engaged in progressive politics. He is a retired attorney currently engaged in arbitration and mediation.
View my complete profile
- Focus of filing fee flap shifts to Robin Carnahan[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- Bill would ban 3rd-party campaigns for Congress[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- Civilian Review Approved by Public Safety Committee[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- Molly Ivins will not support Hillary for prez[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- Argus says El-Amin, Troupe have reconciled[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- Is Starbucks the 'blue-state' WalMart?[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- Week marks split decision for trial lawyers[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- Lohr outpolls Blunt for ‘Grinch of the Year’[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- Early handicapping in the 4th District[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- Computerized censorship on the ACC blog[/*:m:6uhc8kbt][/list:u:6uhc8kbt]
- August 2004[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- September 2004[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- October 2004[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- November 2004[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- December 2004[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- January 2005[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- February 2005[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- March 2005[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- May 2005[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- June 2005[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- July 2005[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- November 2005[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- December 2005[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- January 2006[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- February 2006[/*:m:6uhc8kbt]
- March 2006[/*:m:6uhc8kbt][/list:u:6uhc8kbt]
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Focus of filing fee flap shifts to Robin Carnahan
A controversy has arisen among those commenting on the Post-Dispatch’s Political Fix blog over Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s removal of Glenn Miller, Jr.’s name from the Missouri primary ballot for U.S. Congress in the 7th District after the Democratic Party rejected Miller’s filing fee. The Republican Party also announced preemptively that it would also reject Miller’s fee if he tried to file as a Republican. Miller then skipped the GOP and filed as a Libertarian, but that party rejected him too, and Carnahan removed his name from their ballot as well. Missouri law provides that the filing fees are payable to the political party in which the candidate files.
Parties don’t want Miller as their candidate because of his reputation as an anti-semitic white supremacist. The Associated Press identifies him as the former leader of the White Patriot Party.
But the controversy is no longer about Miller and his views. It is now questionable whether Carnahan had the legal right to deny Miller’s right to file in any party’s primary. (Filing as an independent would require a petition drive to get signatures of over 5,000 registered voters from that district.)
I have concluded that the Democratic Party (where Miller first filed) simply decided to reject the filing because they wanted to. With fellow party member Carnahan in charge of election filings, it was easy to get her to oblige. The wording of the Associated Press release that Post-Dispatch reporter Jo Mannies quoted in her blog suggests that the party told the AP that its rejection of Miller’s money meant he no longer qualified to run on the their ticket. The media bought it, just assuming that the party knew what it was talking about. The Democrats were undoubtedly comfortable assuming that Republicans and other parties weren’t about to call them on it, because they want the same power for themselves.
This tactic is regrettably common in government, surfacing most often in sunshine law violations, where a government official blows off an unwanted freedom of information request, and the decision sticks unless and until the requesting party marshalls the resources to file a lawsuit against the government, and win it. It’s bullying, plain and simple. In the current matter, draping it in the clothing of fending off racism is just a smokescreen.
The Oracle and others who commented on the Political Fix can find no statutory authority for denial of Miller’s place on the ballot. A commentator called “publiceye” (believed to be Mayor Slay’s publicist Richard Callow, who runs a consulting firm by that name) pointed out a provision stating that “no candidate’s name shall be printed on any official ballot until the required fee has been paid.” He went on to opine, “No fee. No file.” But I pointed out, with some agreement and no expressed disagreement by other commentators, that Miller’s tender of the fee probably satisfied the payment requirement, and that his check was not deposited to clear was out of his control and not his problem. All political committees, including political parties, have the right to refuse contributions. But does (and should) that give the parties the right to deny the donor the place on the ballot to which the statutes entitle her/him for making the payment?
What solution is best for society? The easy take is that keeping white supremacists and others with toxic views off the ballot is a good thing. But the law must be blind to the substance of a candidate’s political expression, and must apply equally and equitably to all. Since there is no statute (or apparently any case law or state regulation either) on the subject, there are no formal standards governing when a party may reject a candidate’s filing. That would mean that parties could reject filings at will, with no reason required. If allowed to stand as precedent, a party’s right to deny filings would empower factions in control of the party to keep insurgent factions from challenging them, effectively leaving no contest for voters to decide in the primary. That very result is already happening by way of backroom deals that eliminate competition, so it’s safe to expect that parties (or controlling factions) would abuse the right if this trial balloon were allowed to soar.
If such a practice had been utilized in the past, St. Louis would probably have no citywide African American officials, because the white-controlled Democratic City Committee could have held off the successful challenges of Benjamin Goins and Freeman Bosley, Jr., just by rejecting their filing fees. The Jim Crow era Democratic State Committee might have done the same to Ted McNeal, Missouri’s first African American state senator, when he filed to oust white Sen. Edward Hogan in 1960. That’s unthinkable today, but I’ll bet it would have happened then if the pols had thought of it. Darlene Green, Larry Williams and Maida Coleman might not hold their present offices if those earlier trailblazers had been denied the right to compete.
Tom Knapp of St. Louis County, a respected member of the executive committee of the Missouri Libertarian Party, offered this thoughtful justification why parties should have such a power: “Parties are groups of people who associate together to advance political ideas they share. In many states, Missouri included, [political parties] have to do considerable work to secure a spot on the [ballot]. They do so for the purpose of running candidates who advance the ideas the party advocates. . . . Why should someone who wants to run for office be allowed to hijack the efforts of people who do not agree with him and do not care to have their work used to advance HIS ideas, which are antithetical to their ideas?”
In a similar vein, the Missouri Green Party has a platform plank that would allow parties to replace the primary election with a convention or caucus to nominate its candidates. One local Green expresses the concern that a major corporation like Monsanto could file its own candidates for party committee, take over the party, and bring the party’s work against the company’s genetic engineering technology and products to a halt. Neither the Green Party of the United States (with whom the Missouri Green Party is not affiliated) nor the Progressive Party of Missouri (the state’s GPUS affiliate) have any similar plank.
But enough of this “fair and balanced” review of this issue. It is up to Secretary of State Carnahan to enforce the law that exists, not the law she would like to exist. Any changes to current law are the province of the legislature, and it’s already too late to change the rules for this election. I think Robin overstepped her authority. Perhaps she needs to be reminded that manipulating filings for office is what got Democratic Secretary of State Judi Moriarity impeached in the 1990s.
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire
Posted : 22/03/2006 10:08 am
Perhaps you need to put aside the natural aversion to lawyers and use the advice of a lawyer to take further action.
On top of the world.
Posted : 22/03/2006 10:32 am
Law is a lot more then one sentence. I found the following on Missouri law 115.357
Lindstedt sued the Libertarian party.They tried to deny him a place on the ballot also.
Posted : 22/03/2006 11:03 am
File suite-it's the American way.
Posted : 22/03/2006 11:24 am
Wow! You should contact this guy right away and ask him how he would suggest you hold the lady's feet to the fire on that.
Posted : 22/03/2006 11:35 am
You've got the "respectable" establishment political parties by the balls and on the run <ouch!> with your campaign, Rounder! Great job! You might as well mobilize a campaign to get those 5,000 names you need to run as an independent in your district. That's really not that many with all the publicity you've received. Just make sure you validate each petition signatory as being a legitimate registered voter. Get their complete correct addresses and be sure to get a couple of thousand more than you need (20%) to be safe. You can be sure that your Board of Elections will check each petitioner's name for legitimacy.
Keep smiling and keep reminding everybody, especially Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc., what they were all told at their daddy's knees: "In America EVERYBODY can grow up to become president" --or a congressman, for that matter -- even an unreconstructed White man.
Like Tom Metzger has said, "If we could vote our way out of this mess the Jew would soon make voting illegal." Jews seem prepared to cancel the franchise in places like Palestine and Belarus where candidates that take an increasingly dim view of Jewry have recently won elections legitimately. Jews will never forgive nor will they ever forget that the German people elected Mr. Hitler, the greatest Jew-fighter in history, by a landslide in a democratic election.
Posted : 22/03/2006 12:22 pm
Topic starter
Wow! You should contact this guy right away and ask him how he would suggest you hold the lady's feet to the fire on that.
His website doesn't even include his name, much less contact information, A.E.
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire
Posted : 22/03/2006 2:15 pm
They are treating Rounder the way they used to treat the niggers, so Rounder could dress in black face and stand in a public place with a protest sign with the lady's name - and all the highest officials involved - on it until she gives in.
"Go, Nazis, Go!"
Posted : 22/03/2006 2:21 pm
Topic starter
You've got the "respectable" establishment political parties by the balls and on the run <ouch!> with your campaign, Rounder! Great job! You might as well mobilize a campaign to get those 5,000 names you need to run as an independent in your district. That's really not that many with all the publicity you've received. Just make sure you validate each petition signatory as being a legitimate registered voter. Get their complete correct addresses and be sure to get a couple of thousand more than you need (20%) to be safe. You can be sure that your Board of Elections will check each petitioner's name for legitimacy.
Keep smiling and keep reminding everybody, especially Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc., what they were all told at their daddy's knees: "In America EVERYBODY can grow up to become president" --or a congressman, for that matter -- even an unreconstructed White man.
Like Tom Metzger has said, "If we could vote our way out of this mess the Jew would soon make voting illegal." Jews seem prepared to cancel the franchise in places like Palestine and Belarus where candidates that take an increasingly dim view of Jewry have recently won elections legitimately. Jews will never forgive nor will they ever forget that the German people elected Mr. Hitler, the greatest Jew-fighter in history, by a landslide in a democratic election.
Jim Giles only had to obtain 200 registered signatures in order to gain ballot access as an independent candidate for US Congress in Mississippi. In Missouri, it's 6,000. No small task, Will.
I believe it'll only take a simple lawsuit to force Robin Carnahan, the Missouri Secretary of State, to place my name on the August ballot. And on the democratic ticket, since that was the first party I filed to run under. She has absolutely no legal authority (state statute) to refuse.
All I need now is for somebody to draft up the simple half-page lawsuit, and tell me in which court I should file it, pro se. The inevitable court victory and resulting media coverage, will help my campaign, as well.
As I see it, the only way the court can rule against me is to say that state statute 115.357 doesn't say what it says.
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire
Posted : 22/03/2006 2:30 pm
Glenn,
I don't mean to derail you but Missouri Law 115.348
115.348. No person shall qualify as a candidate for elective public office in the state of Missouri who has been convicted of or found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony or misdemeanor under the federal laws of the United States of America.
A whole list of Missouri election laws can be found here
I have no idea what 80 percent of this stuff means.
Good luck.
Posted : 22/03/2006 3:41 pm
This is "privatization" (i.e., forcible theft) of the most fundamental institution of representative government, the ballot. Now the ballot belongs to the Democrats, the Republicans, the Libertarians (potheads), etc., but not to the people or to the State of Missouri. We no longer have representative government. The government is illegal. When they run out of money to pay their goons, they're done for.
Few will sign a ballot access petition for anyone controversial (i.e., meaningful). Would you vote if YOUR vote, signed by you, were on public file at the statehouse forever? If the Dems have the right to reject Miller's candidacy, then the petition requirement must be void. Otherwise there is no free election.
"A teacher isn't filling a bucket, he's lighting a fire."
- Plutarch
Posted : 22/03/2006 4:22 pm
Topic starter
Glenn,
I don't mean to derail you but Missouri Law 115.348
A whole list of Missouri election laws can be found here
I have no idea what 80 percent of this stuff means.
Good luck.
As I understand it, the law forbidding felons from being on the ballot, only applies to state offices. I'm running for federal office - US Congress.
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire
Posted : 22/03/2006 5:10 pm
Topic starter
This is "privatization" (i.e., forcible theft) of the most fundamental institution of representative government, the ballot. Now the ballot belongs to the Democrats, the Republicans, the Libertarians (potheads), etc., but not to the people or to the State of Missouri. We no longer have representative government. The government is illegal. When they run out of money to pay their goons, they're done for.
Few will sign a ballot access petition for anyone controversial (i.e., meaningful). Would you vote if YOUR vote, signed by you, were on public file at the statehouse forever? If the Dems have the right to reject Miller's candidacy, then the petition requirement must be void. Otherwise there is no free election.
Well said, HPD. What's amazing is that the government's denial of my ballot access was reported via Associated Press in around 300 newspapers and radio and TV stations, coast to cast. Therefore, now known by millions. The outrage is at least out in the open.
Excellent observation in your 2nd paragraph, as well. Few will sign for fear of their own government. The ole "play it safe, don't get involved, go with the smart money, let somebody else do it, and why should I stick my neck out," lemming mindset.
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire
Posted : 22/03/2006 5:24 pm
As I understand it, the law forbidding felons from being on the ballot, only applies to state offices. I'm running for federal office - US Congress.
Okay, wasn't sure if you saw that or not. You probably know more than me about this but I find all the laws pertaining to running for office a real pain in the ass. Damn lawyers. Good luck.
Posted : 22/03/2006 5:31 pm
This is good news Glenn.
Why not make a bunch of copies of that lawyer’s blog and give it as a "handout" when you interview the attorney's when deciding who will represent you in your civil rights violation lawsuit against the State of Missuori?
I smell big money in them thar hills!
The ink of the learned is as precious as the blood of the martyr. For one drop of ink may make millions think.
Posted : 22/03/2006 6:15 pm
Page 1 / 2
Next