West Virginia officials deny Blankenship a spot on Senate ballot

[DonViejo]

Source: Politico



By JAMES ARKIN 07/26/2018 12:24 PM EDT

West Virginia’s secretary of state on Thursday denied Don Blankenship’s bid to appear on the Senate ballot as a third-party candidate, a victory for Republicans hoping to consolidate votes against Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in the general election.

Secretary of State, Mac Warner, said Blankenship’s bid would violate the state’s "sore loser law" preventing a candidate who lost a primary from running again in the general election. Blankenship ran in the May GOP primary but finished a distant third, and submitted signatures earlier this week to run in November as the Constitution Party candidate.

“According to the plain language of the law, which controls my decision, a candidate who loses the Primary Election cannot use the nomination-certificate process to run another campaign in the General Election. Any other decision would be contrary to the law," Warner said in a statement.

The decision is expected to kick off a legal battle over the law itself as Blankenship seeks to continue his campaign. Blankenship said in a statement before submitting his petitions that he expected to pursue legal efforts to fight an expected denial.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/26/don-blankenship-no-senate-ballot-743490

[Archae]

1. The "Constitution Party," figures.

The same guys who would make the Bible the law of the land, and keep getting caught with corrupt candidates.

[Mr.Bill]

2. Where can we contribute to a write-in campaign for him? n/t

[Fred Sanders]

3. The poorly worded media name for the law that bans candidacy after not winning a party primary

is unconstitutional and meant only to protect Republican interests.

[Mr.Bill]

4. A little detail like that shouldn't keep

the idiots that support him from writing him in.

[onenote]

7. Can you point me to a case that holds a "sore loser" law unconstitutional

Because, despite what you say in your post, all I can find are cases in which constitutional challenges to such laws have been rejected by the courts (including the Supreme Court in Storer v. Brown).

Thanks.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Storer involved a 1 year prior party affiliation, not 90 days, and was part of a larger "election

integrity package" that also applied the one year rule to party affiliated candidates.

The idea is candidates make early plans to be independents or have party affiliation and contest primaries in those parties. The 90 day rule is targeting anybody not winning a party primary and then banning them from being an independent by any pathway.

I think the facts and the disputed laws are distinguishable and Storer is not binding.

Besides, SCOTUS seems not much included towards precedent these days.

[Dopers_Greed]

5. We should start a write-in campaign alleging that the "deep state" kept him off the ballot

[spinbaby]

6. It would be worth it

If only for the entertainment value.