Constitution Party failing ballot access

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/0...ion-in-arizona-connecticut-and-new-hampshire/

Constitution Party Lacks Sufficient Money to Petition in Arizona, Connecticut, and New Hampshire
July 15th, 2008
The Constitution Party has decided that it cannot afford to get on the ballot for president this year in Arizona, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. Maine is in doubt. However, the party still hopes to be on the ballot in 41 states. The other states that party doesn’t expect to be on are: Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas.

14 Responses to “Constitution Party Lacks Sufficient Money to Petition in Arizona, Connecticut, and New Hampshire”

DonLake@sbcglo bal.net Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Less choices, less democracy!

Steve Z Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I’d be very surprised if they got on the New York State ballot. No matter what they may be saying, the State party that was affiliated with them in 2004 is no longer affiliated with them, and they haven’t done anything to grow the new affiliate that took its place. It’s a virtual non-entity in the state.

Trent Hill Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Maine and Conneticut!? REALLY!?

will Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
good, atleast for freedom

Glenn Brown Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
That’s what happen when Lawyers run a political party. All meetings and no soap. 32 States ?
Too Bad.

Cody Quirk Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Richard,

Can you cite your source on this?

darren Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
They’re on in West Virginia?

Richard Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
The Constitution Party started petitioning last year in West Virginia. Although they aren’t done yet, they have more signatures than the Libertarian Party, the only other party that is petitioning. Nader is ahead of both, however. Greens are on automatically.

citizen1 Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Trent,
It is true at least as far as CT is concerned. They decided that if they did not get more professional help we would no make it. I think we could have come close but think we would have fallen short.

Trent Hill Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
citien1,

Try anyway.

Cody Quirk Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
EXACTELY!

THE DEADLINE ISN’T UNTIL AUGUST 6TH AND YOU’RE GIVING UP NOW?!

COMMON!
GROW SOME ‘CHUZPAH’ AND GET OUT THERE AND GET SIGNATURES UNTIL YOUR HANDS ARE BLOODY!

DonLake@sbcglo bal.net Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
zeal·ot Audio Help /ˈzɛlət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[zel-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who shows zeal.
2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.
3. (initial capital letter) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.
[Origin: 1530–40; earlier zelote < LL zélōtés < Gk zéltés, equiv. to zélō- (var. s. of zéloûn to be zealous; see zeal) + -tés agent suffix]

—Synonyms 2. extremist, crank, bigot. See fanatic.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

citizen1 Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
We will turn in what we have and collect what we can but the 2 professionals that we had have stopped. Actually the one was just starting the same day she was told to stop. The other had been working about 4 days.

 

[Knightskye]

I guess some Baldwin supporters will have some decisions to make.

 

[SovereignMN]

The CP is still looking like they will be on more ballots than 2004.

 

[allyinoh]

I'm probably going to end up not voting this year, sadly.

 

[familydog]

Nader is looking pretty good if I can't for vote Baldwin.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I find it PATHETIC that Ron Paul supporters would vote for left wing NADER ...as a GRUDGE rather than jump on board with Bob Barr who is spreading the Ron Paul Liberty message. SHAME! Tones (that is pure hatefulness and EGO..let GO of you egos!)

 

[familydog]

I find it PATHETIC that Ron Paul supporters would vote for left wing NADER ...as a GRUDGE rather than jump on board with Bob Barr who is spreading the Ron Paul Liberty message. SHAME! Tones (that is pure hatefulness and EGO..let GO of you egos!)

Get over yourself.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It seems as if we're repeating the very same construct that we saw during the campaign. When a person has their candidate bashed by others supporting yet a different candidate, it does not entice the person to jump into the other's camp, if their own candidate drops out of the race, or is unable to get on the ballot.

It may very well be biting off your nose to spite your face, but it is human nature, nonetheless. Maybe we should remember that as we move out into the future.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Bob Barr is the candidate being bashed on this forum. Bob Barr supporters consistantly have to come to his defense. It has resulted in Barr supporters counter bashing Baldwin..and I'm trying not to do that because Baldwin is also spreading the message. LibertyEagle? Are you a Bob Barr supporter? Tones

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

The frustration is ...we have been trying to explain that the CP / Baldwin...will have a tough time getting on ballots. The CP is still fledgling as compared to the LP. Baldwin has no real chance and it is even more frustrating that when the Baldwin supporters see it coming down, they would jump to some candidate other than Barr which will not help push the Liberty message forward. We know Barr won't win the presidency...but it is very important that we have a liberty candidate in the debates...and that we push a third party forward. That could open the doors for other third parties...thereby making it easier for them to get ballot access..etc...in the future. tones

 

[votefreedomfirst]

Looks like I'll be writing in Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.

Now that's a platform I can get behind.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes..to Hell with the revolution! I'm voting for Alfred E Newman! Tones

 

[LibertyEagle]

Bob Barr is the candidate being bashed on this forum. Bob Barr supporters consistantly have to come to his defense. It has resulted in Barr supporters counter bashing Baldwin..and I'm trying not to do that because Baldwin is also spreading the message. LibertyEagle? Are you a Bob Barr supporter? Tones

I wasn't accusing you at all. But to be fair, I have seen a lot of bashing going both ways.

As far as me personally, to be honest, I initially supported Baldwin. Right now, I'm not sure who I'll support. But, if he makes it on the ballot, it will probably be Baldwin. I don't hate Barr though. He's so much better than what we usually have to choose from, it's not even funny.

 

[LittleLightShining]

I have been, up til now, saying I was going to vote for Baldwin but if he doesn't achieve 50 state ballot access I think I'll vote for Barr. Solidarity is of the utmost importance right now.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The frustration is ...we have been trying to explain that the CP / Baldwin...will have a tough time getting on ballots. The CP is still fledgling as compared to the LP. Baldwin has no real chance and it is even more frustrating that when the Baldwin supporters see it coming down, they would jump to some candidate other than Barr which will not help push the Liberty message forward. We know Barr won't win the presidency...but it is very important that we have a liberty candidate in the debates...and that we push a third party forward. That could open the doors for other third parties...thereby making it easier for them to get ballot access..etc...in the future. tones

The reality is that neither of them has much of a chance. Sad, but it's the truth. Instead of just focusing on Ron Paul supporters, why not branch out to the vast majority of the other people out there? Barr can't win even if he got the votes of ALL of Ron's supporters.

The point is that it's not a good idea for Barr supporters to keep going around bashing Baldwin. It kind of sours people on Barr. I know it shouldn't, but it's the reality. Think about it. Doesn't it kind of stick in your throat that Dondero supports Barr? It's not Barr's fault, but it's still hard not to take note. I'm thinking that this same kind of thing worked against us during the Paul campaign. Our actions DID reflect on Ron Paul. Be they good, or bad.

That said, if Baldwin does not make it on the ballot in Texas, I will be voting for Barr.

 

[NewFederalist]

That said, if Baldwin does not make it on the ballot in Texas, I will be voting for Barr.

Chuck Baldwin has already missed the deadline in Texas. Signatures were due May 26. An organized write-in is planned as well as in AZ, IN and NC so far. The CP will not be on the ballot in OK either and write-in votes are not tallied.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well. I don't dislike Baldwin..but I see more Barr bashing ...and Barr supporters having to be on the defensive. I do believe it is counter productive to bash either candidate. They are both trying to spread the message. tones

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I went to both the CP and LP websites. It appears that the LP is on 31 ballots and the CP is on 23 ballots. Both are still collecting signatures. I wonder if the major parties have to go through this process..and if not..why not? tones

 

[LittleLightShining]

I went to both the CP and LP websites. It appears that the LP is on 31 ballots and the CP is on 23 ballots. Both are still collecting signatures. I wonder if the major parties have to go through this process..and if not..why not? tones

I think the rules vary from state to state.

For instance, here is the way it works in Vermont as related to me by a CP member:

Minor parties in Vermont must caucus in 10 towns and then have a state caucus where they elect statewide committee members. After the paperwork is submitted to the state, the party is an official minor party. The process repeats itself every other year on the “off” year (i.e. 2005, 2007, 2009).


On election years, the state committee must hold a state caucus where they put forward a slate of candidates for the general election. The deadline is somewhere in September. That paperwork is submitted to the state and the candidates are on the ballot – with no gathering of signatures!

As far as the major parties go, I know that all state and local candidates need to get signatures (1k, I think) for each election cycle. I have no idea about the presidential candidates but I would guess that they nominate someone from their conventions and that's it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I do believe it is counter productive to bash either candidate. They are both trying to spread the message. tones

I totally agree.