quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
There is a huge difference between a coin toss and revealing private financial data. By your reasoning, races or national heritage could be used to exclude candidate, or sex, etc. You could also say no one on the ballot unless they accept 5 homeless people into their homes. I don't see this as constitutional, as people have a right to security of their property and papers. Waiver of constitutional rights as a pre-requisite is a huge fail, like literacy tests at the polls.

It's most definitely not my argument, I was just explaining what their argument is. Their response to race, national heritage, etc. is that those are excluded because they are characteristics people have no control over and would not be allowed.

The coin toss is an extreme example, it's just to illustrate the point that in the constitution, and confirmed by SCOTUS decisions - the right of the states to determine how to apportion their electors for president is absolute. All states have decided for now to allow their citizens to vote for president, but it is NOT a constitutional requirement and states are free to do what they want.

That part of the argument is not really in question, it's just the ballot access restrictions like having to expose tax returns that would have to be decided by the courts. NJ and the other states attempting this are going to make the argument that it is a question about how they are apportioning electors and thus constitutional and the opponents are going to frame it as a ballot access restriction that goes against the requirements set forth in the constitution and is thus unconstitutional.

I am hoping the opponents win the argument - I don't think ballot restrictions are good and would lead to a lot of nefarious shenanigans down the road.

quote:

Originally posted by MG34_Dan:
The libs are bound and determined to start a civil war.

Bring it. I ready.

In the 1860 election Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in 10 slave states. Grover Cleveland wasn’t on the ballot in 5 states in 1892. Both Truman and Johnson were kept off Alabama’s ballot in 1948 and 1964 respectively.

In the 1964 Goldwater-Johnson election Governor George Wallace kept the President off the ballot planning for his own presidential run. When he decided not to he left the democratic delegates I pledged. The state went for Goldwater but Johnson won in a landslide.

As the democrats didcoverd with their use of the nuclear option, this can turn around and bite them. Then there is the idea that unpledges Republican electors will run committed to voting for President Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...residential_election

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Don't forget college transcripts!

and yearbooks,