Comments on: Stant May Not Qualify in Indiana http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:13:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: rai sport http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-171789 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:42:11 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-171789 <strong>rai sport</strong> news rai sport

news

]]> by: sfondi sport http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-171787 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:41:56 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-171787 <strong>sfondi sport</strong> news sfondi sport

news

]]> by: alien http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-171776 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:32:03 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-171776 <strong>alien</strong> news alien

news

]]> by: Steps to Freedom/Sean Bagley http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-56882 Sun, 01 Oct 2006 06:25:43 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-56882 Since Nader ran for President in 2000, the Indiana legislature has repeatedly worked to make ballot access more difficult for 3rd Parties. 1st they changed the petition deadline to June 30 from July 15 meaning 2 weeks less to get the 30,000 signatures. i hadn't heard the change the Lib posted of but it certainly doesn't surprise me. Steps (IGP Secretary) Since Nader ran for President in 2000, the Indiana legislature has repeatedly worked to make ballot access more difficult for 3rd Parties. 1st they changed the petition deadline to June 30 from July 15 meaning 2 weeks less to get the 30,000 signatures. i hadn’t heard the change the Lib posted of but it certainly doesn’t surprise me.

Steps
(IGP Secretary)

]]> by: Mike Kole http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-35941 Mon, 03 Jul 2006 19:03:19 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-35941 Phil- More is coming. The Libertarian Party of Indiana was just notified that a whole host of candidates were kicked off the ballot. In a nutshell, the laws were changed this year as regards the post-convention appointments of candidates. The ruling was based on a requirement to give a 10-day notice of intent to fill vacancies. The state party sent an email to the Secretary of State's office indicating that we would be filling positions. The Elections Division ruled that email was not sufficient. What is though? The Division has not supplied a form of any kind, and email and other electronic filing is sufficient for many other filings. This looks purely subjective to me. It interests me to see proof that the Ds &#38; Rs post-convention filings should be treated the same way as ours just were. If they are treated equally, the Ds &#38; Rs will also be shedding candidates. But, that's bad for representative government. I'm sick of these restrictive rules that are designed to trip candidates up and limit the number of choices on the ballot. Phil- More is coming. The Libertarian Party of Indiana was just notified that a whole host of candidates were kicked off the ballot.

In a nutshell, the laws were changed this year as regards the post-convention appointments of candidates. The ruling was based on a requirement to give a 10-day notice of intent to fill vacancies. The state party sent an email to the Secretary of State’s office indicating that we would be filling positions. The Elections Division ruled that email was not sufficient. What is though? The Division has not supplied a form of any kind, and email and other electronic filing is sufficient for many other filings. This looks purely subjective to me. It interests me to see proof that the Ds & Rs post-convention filings should be treated the same way as ours just were. If they are treated equally, the Ds & Rs will also be shedding candidates.

But, that’s bad for representative government. I’m sick of these restrictive rules that are designed to trip candidates up and limit the number of choices on the ballot.

]]> by: Citizens For http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-34484 Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:21:55 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-34484 .....just because you are paranoid does not mean that 'they' are not out to 'get you'....... .....just because you are paranoid does not mean that ‘they’ are not out to ‘get you’.......

]]> by: Gary Odom http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-34402 Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:31:59 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-34402 This is another example of why it is essential for the Greens, LP, CP and other independents to set aside any jealousies or philosophical differences at least for the purpose of uniting to fight patently unfair and discriminatory ballot access laws. As the three larger "3rd Parties" continue to grow (and I believe each will) I believe the major parties will become more fearful (and believe me, Nixon was far from the only politician suffering from unreasonable paranoia concerning threats to his power or position) of the competition. I really don't see the same folks who like to increase their salaries every couple of years and carve up districts to ensure that they are as safe for incumbants as possible welcoming us into the process with open arms. Two parties is reasonably manageable in their eyes. Five parties will create more uncertainty than they care to cope with. Up to now, ignoring us has worked fairly well. If that strategy starts to falter, look for less passive measures to be employed-including attempts to pass more restrictive ballot laws. Again, I actually hope that it is me being a little paranoid here, but we do have to be vigilant. This is another example of why it is essential for the Greens, LP, CP and other independents to set aside any jealousies or philosophical differences at least for the purpose of uniting to fight patently unfair and discriminatory ballot access laws.

As the three larger “3rd Parties” continue to grow (and I believe each will) I believe the major parties will become more fearful (and believe me, Nixon was far from the only politician suffering from unreasonable paranoia concerning threats to his power or position) of the competition. I really don’t see the same folks who like to increase their salaries every couple of years and carve up districts to ensure that they are as safe for incumbants as possible welcoming us into the process with open arms. Two parties is reasonably manageable in their eyes. Five parties will create more uncertainty than they care to cope with. Up to now, ignoring us has worked fairly well. If that strategy starts to falter, look for less passive measures to be employed-including attempts to pass more restrictive ballot laws. Again, I actually hope that it is me being a little paranoid here, but we do have to be vigilant.

]]> by: Rob http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-34363 Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:20:18 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-34363 Mike Kole, the only decent candidate in this race, has some things to say about this on his blog: http://kolehardfacts.blogspot.com/ Mike Kole, the only decent candidate in this race, has some things to say about this on his blog:

http://kolehardfacts.blogspot.com/

]]> by: Phil http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-34312 Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:09:54 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/06/30/stant-may-not-qualify-in-indiana/#comment-34312 Is this not the second article from Indiana that's been very j*ck*ssy towards third parties? Hopefully the entire state isn't like this... Is this not the second article from Indiana that’s been very j*ck*ssy towards third parties? Hopefully the entire state isn’t like this…

]]>