<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: N. C. Drops Ballot Access Improvement</title>
	<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/08/15/north-carolina-drops-ballot-access-improvement/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Sean Haugh</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/08/15/north-carolina-drops-ballot-access-improvement/#comment-637</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/08/15/north-carolina-drops-ballot-access-improvement/#comment-637</guid>
					<description>I spoke with Gary Bartlett, Executive Director of the NC State Board of Elections, yesterday and he did not have a theory as to why the Senate chose that part of the bill to mess with beyond just more legislative games between the two chambers.  It certainly adds a piece of evidence for our impending lawsuit, one more example of the General Assembly acting in bad faith when it comes to NC ballot access.

Thanks for the boffo blog.

Sean Haugh
Executive Director, LPNC</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I spoke with Gary Bartlett, Executive Director of the <span class="caps">NC </span>State Board of Elections, yesterday and he did not have a theory as to why the Senate chose that part of the bill to mess with beyond just more legislative games between the two chambers.  It certainly adds a piece of evidence for our impending lawsuit, one more example of the General Assembly acting in bad faith when it comes to NC ballot access.</p>
	<p>Thanks for the boffo blog.</p>
	<p>Sean Haugh<br />
Executive Director, <span class="caps">LPNC</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Seth Dilday</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/08/15/north-carolina-drops-ballot-access-improvement/#comment-636</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:07:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/08/15/north-carolina-drops-ballot-access-improvement/#comment-636</guid>
					<description>North Carolina has, depending on how you look at it, the second or third most difficult ballot access laws in the country; yet the North Carolina Libertarian Party has managed to maintain continuous ballot access since the early 1990's. Presently, though, the state party faces potential decertification and the removal of its candidates from this November's ballot if the North Carolina Board of Elections so rules. 

It's a draining process, trying to acquire 100,000 signatures, and the LPNC could use all the help it can get, from within North Carolina and without. Information on the LPNC's ballot access drive (including how to contribute) is online at http://www.lpnc.org/get_involved/ballot_access.html .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>North Carolina has, depending on how you look at it, the second or third most difficult ballot access laws in the country; yet the North Carolina Libertarian Party has managed to maintain continuous ballot access since the early 1990&#8217;s. Presently, though, the state party faces potential decertification and the removal of its candidates from this November&#8217;s ballot if the North Carolina Board of Elections so rules.</p>
	<p>It&#8217;s a draining process, trying to acquire 100,000 signatures, and the <span class="caps">LPNC</span> could use all the help it can get, from within North Carolina and without. Information on the <span class="caps">LPNC</span>&#8217;s ballot access drive (including how to contribute) is online at <a href='http://www.lpnc.org/get_involved/ballot_access.html' rel='nofollow'>http://www.lpnc.org/get_involved/ballot_access.html</a> .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
