Mitt Romney Might Not Be On the Washington State Ballot In November

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Patheos


Due to technicalities in Washington State law, American’s most famous Mormon, Mitt Romney, may not be on the ballot in the state come November because the Republican Party doesn’t currently qualify as a “major party” any more. The Stranger laid out the details earlier this month:


RCW 29A.04.086 tells us that “”Major political party” means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year.”

In 2010, the only state-wide race was a race for U.S. Senate.

The Republican Party did not nominate any candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010 because neither the Rossi contingent nor the Didier contingent wanted to risk losing a nomination vote at the 2010 state convention of the Republican Party.

Because the “Top-2″ primary is only a winnowing primary – not a nominating primary – Mr. Rossi, who proceeded through the Top-2, was not the Republican Party nominee.


Because the two Republicans running for the US Senate seat in 2010 weren’t officially nominated by the Republican Party, that means the Republican Party didn’t get at least 5% of the vote in a statewide election. And that, in turn, means Romney would have had to file as a minor party candidate (requiring his campaign to collect at least a thousand voter signatures at a nominating convention taking place after the first Saturday of June and the last Saturday of July.) And, it seems, Romney’s campaign did not do that.

Back when The Stranger first reported on this, no one expected that Washington’s Secretary of State would actually leave Romney’s name off of the ballot because of this technicality. But now it seems the Libertarian Party is suing (PDF) to keep Romney’s name off[.]


Well it was not like Mitt Romney was going to win Washington (state) anyway. President Obama won there in a landslide last election and will likely win by a fair margin again whether or not Romney wins the electoral college or popular vote. But I do think it is hilarious how the two parties; Democrats and Republicans, work so hard to keep third parties off the ballots that they now have painted themselves into the third party corner and are faced with the same obstacles the others like the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties, among others, face.

The chances of this law being forcefully rewritten, overturned, or basically ruled irrelevant is quite high. Whether they are kept off the ballot or not is yet to be seen, but I am quite sure they are irritated by this.




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Seems to me, everyone ought to be irritated about this. When the games were targeting Ron Paul, we were all irate and we were fully justified in being pissed. Now it's petty games to play against Romney and it's no better. Just as cheap and childish....and Washington State? Why am I not surprised. To say Washington State is a little partisan is like saying Texas is just a little conservative.

I hate the games and B.S. with the ballots though. We all know who the candidates are and blocking ROmney on technical games is as bad as Paul or Obama. If we CARE about letting the people vote..as much as we all claim to when it's OUR guy it's said about...then lets be equal about everyone voting and tell the states to stop playing games.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
The State of Washington also changed its primary to a "top two" system at the same time and required candidates to say "Prefers X Party" rather than declaring themselves a member of a given party outright. From the Seattle Times.


State election officials, led by Republican Sam Reed, said that law was essentially repealed by a voter-approved initiative in 2004 that scrapped the party primaries in favor of the top-two system. Since then, the state has adopted an administrative code allowing parties to qualify as major political parties if their presidential tickets get more than 5 percent of the vote in the last White House vote.

Looking at the results of the last presidential election in 2008, the state believes both Republicans and Democrats automatically qualify to have their candidates on the November ballot.

State GOP chairman Kirby Wilbur called the lawsuit a "silly matter."

"Dino Rossi was nominated by this party in August 2010," he said, noting that at a state board meeting after the 2010 state Republican convention and primary, Rossi was officially endorsed by the party.

"We have legal documents that show that" and Republicans will seek to have the case dismissed, Wilbur said.


In other words, the state changed the rules, therefore the old rules no longer apply. My prediction: The lawsuit will be dismissed. The real question is, why are the libertarians doing this? What purpose does it serve?
edit on 8/18/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
This is outrageous !!

Think of all the disenfranchised voters who will not have a full choice in the national election !!

This is nothing but a lame retaliation to the voter I.D. efforts and the "early voting" debacle in Ohio.

This is frenzied spasm Hot under the collar raving mad jealousy being displayed by the Fibrillating Palpitating Foaming-at-the-Mouth Ultra-Liberal Super Left Wing Fanatical Radical Loony Luminaries


They refuse to be outdone !



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Libertarian Party supporters cannot complain about their candidates being disenfranchised if they keep silent about what they are doing in Washington. This is unbelievable, I wasn't aware that States were allowed to just cut off Parties and candidates like this? I am aware that during the 1860 elections the Republican Party was kept off of the ballots in the South, this is the only other time I recalled that something like this happened.

I'm fairly certain this won't stay, Romney will be on the ballot once this case is taken to the Federal courts. I surely hope so, regardless of whether Washington is a "no go" for Republicans.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

In other words, the state changed the rules, therefore the old rules no longer apply. My prediction: The lawsuit will be dismissed. The real question is, why are the libertarians doing this? What purpose does it serve?
edit on 8/18/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


Laws like this are used to keep third parties like the Libertarians off the ballot. If they can get the Republican party to fight against this law and get it overturned, it will be easier for the Libertarians to get on the ballot in the future.

It also points out the lengths the major parties have gone to to keep third parties off the ballots and how they have kept us stuck in the two-party trap.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Sorry, but this isn't that newsworthy. Washington is not a battleground state. It leans blue and will remain in the blue column.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 

With all due respect, any attempt to screw with the system in a major way is newsworthy and needs to be noticed in a public way. Location is irrelevant when it has relation to the national system

Who figures anything important comes out of a place like Topeka, Kansas...? No offense, Kansas..but it's not the hotbed of major political change. .....Until someone named Oliver Brown decided the state of school funding for black children vs. white children just kinda pissed him off.
....and a nation was changed. (Brown Vs. Board of Education )

No place is too small to take notice when it may change the way our system works, IMHO.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Good point Wrabbit2000. I was going by the thread's title and didn't think it would mean anything to the Romney Camp, because this state has been and will be Blue. Obama's got this state wrapped up already.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Campaign money is a limited resource that the major parties will spend on battleground states. I just don't see Romney, a Republican, wasting time, money, and energy to hire attorneys to fight this.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Very clear sign Obama remains POTUS.

May not be is not certainly not accurate though, to be continued if real :-)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
Campaign money is a limited resource that the major parties will spend on battleground states. I just don't see Romney, a Republican, wasting time, money, and energy to hire attorneys to fight this.


He doesn't have to. The State Republican Party will take care of this.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Game over. A Thurston County Superior Court judge just through out the Libertarian lawsuit. Story is here. Romney will be on the Washington State ballot this November.





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join