Sen. Blevins & Rep. Cathcart are out of controll
SB 164:
Superior Court shall only count a write-in vote for a person who has declared himself/herself a write-in candidate for the office for which he/she was written-in in accordance with this chapter. Superior Court shall count a write-in vote for a candidate on a general or special election ballot if the write-in vote is for the office for which the person is a candidate. (emphasis mine) (link)
This is pure bullshit
Is this the point where Protack says “We should be doing something about orphans and healthcare!”
Or is this when FSP says “We don’t need another law to weigh down our already too heavy Delaware Code.”
Or perhaps it’s when MOTSmitty says, “Cathcart has really good reasons for doing this…”
I just cannot keep up with the spin cycle…
I think you’ve closed off the ability of any of our regulars to comment on this.
I just saved them some typing…
This is sure gonna piss off all those downstaters who write in Dale Earnhardt for president.
The notion that in the United States of America in the year 2007 any public official could actually propose a law to disqualify a citizen’s vote has me floored. Even worse is that these two mindless legislative bigbrothercrats are trying to snuff the voices of voters who actually went to the length of physically hand writing their choice. (!)
Have these people lost their minds? This country was founded on elections in which the voters hand wrote their choices. But now we live under an election regime in which one party’s political appointee(s) at a state agency (DoE) are charged with making our elections into pre-determined, highly-controlled processes that eliminate any ability to freely vote outside the limits of highly constrictive ballot access rules applied to voters, parties, and would-be candidates.
Now they want to remove the last bastion of the citizen franchise….the write-in. No matter how many ways the powers-that-be – the systemic patriarchs and their rules and regulations – have worked to eliminate electoral competition the voter always had the last resort of making their will known, no matter who their choice be.
This bill wants to take that away and just like HB 177 there is no valid public policy justification and no benefit, but in fact serious detriment, to the rights of the citizenry. If it has any administrative justification at all the solution it proposes is akin to killing a gnat with a nuclear warhead. Whatever motivation for this legislation [O’Donnell] the means they propose can never ever EVER be justified.
NEVER EVER EVER should a citizen’s vote be discounted except when it be cast for a candidate who is constitutionally ineligible to serve in the office for which they received this vote. The public’s last resort of specifically articulating their vote is the last morsel on the pauper’s menu of choices the incumbents have legislated our ballot into.
Now they don’t just want all bites at the apple to themselves, they even want the core that’s left, because they know a starving man will eat even an apple core to survive.
STOP STARVING DEMOCRACY IN DOVER!
…that he is NOT is support of this bill.
You wingnutted yourself, fiberalpunk, as did you, frightland. Nice try putting words into my mouth, except you forgot one thing…I have this tendency to think on my own.
damn it…that first line was supposed to be…
or perhaps it’s when MOTSmitty says, … that he is not in support of this bill.
You are still wingnuts.
Now we wait to see what the WNJ editors will allow JL and Patrick to write about this.
The rubber hits the road. Will the WNJ inform the public of this tyranic strongarming?
And you can’t type.
So what does your boy have to say for himself and this patently obnoxious and unAmerican bill?
Really…one need ask Blevins as she was the author of the bill. DC sponsored it. Not an excuse, just clarification for your spin machine.
For the record, I haven’t asked and I speak for no one but myself…and Frightland when Jason goes off…and Mrs. Jason330 when we diabolically plan to toss Jason in the river…on Valentine’s Day.
The bill is not good.
BUT there is one part of it that is legit: that declared write-in candidates need to abide by campaign finance laws.
Otherwise, I could declare as a write-in candidate, and George Soros could spend $1 billion to get me elected.
Would this bill even be constitutional? Can the state basically 1) disenfranchise its citizens who are legally allowed to vote and 2) ban a candidate from being a write-in because they ran in a primary and lost?
There is no Democratic or Republican Party in Delaware, only the Incumbent Party.
Mike…(this my shock my fiberal friends here)…I searched the DE Constitution (such a thrilling read) and I saw nothing that covers this…not one tidbit. I was really hoping to find something, too.
There is no Democratic or Republican Party in Delaware, only the Incumbent Party.
*
dayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyum
I searched the DE Constitution (such a thrilling read) and I saw nothing that covers this…not one tidbit. I was really hoping to find something, too.
*
I admire your research-temperament.
I defer to TPN and hope he responds since he said it is unconstitutional (DE) today.
I know this isn’t what you meant, but I certainly wasn’t contesting nor challenging what TPN said. I just couldn’t find it, looking myself.
Tyler – if you did find it, please tell me where, because my brain pretty much melted reading what appeared to be the pertinent sections.
TIA
I did some reading and SB164 isn’t 100% bad, but possibly > 80% bad. Believe it or not, there are sections in there that should probably be included in title 15 of the code, as they currently are not considered. This bill either needs to have the hell amended out of it, or it needs to be pulled and the following points reintroduced as their own bill.
The points I think are worth a day in a hearing:
From bill-section one, paragraphs e, f, & h of section 3402:
(e) A person shall not declare himself/herself a write-in candidate if he/she is a candidate on the general election ballot.
(f) A person shall not declare himself/herself a write-in candidate for more than one office. The filing of a declaration for another office prior to the declaration deadline established in this chapter shall make any previous declaration null and void.
(forget about the second sentence in that paragraph, that would apply to something I say should be tossed)
(h) A declared write-in candidate shall comply with the requirements in Chapter 80 of this Title.
(Chapter 80 is campaign finance)
The entire section 2 and 3 of this bill (I believe it starts on line 42) are good, too:
Section 2. Amend Title 15, § 4972 of the Delaware Code by inserting as sub-sections (8) and (9) the following:
“(8) The misspelled, incomplete or minor variation of the name of a declared write-in candidate for an office shall be counted if the name as written bears a reasonable resemblance to the declared candidate’s name and no other declared write-in candidate for the office has a name so similar to the name as written as to leave a reasonable doubt as to the voter’s intention. Additionally, writing in the last name of a declared write-in candidate shall constitute a valid vote unless there are two or more candidates for that office with the same last name.
(this takes out that no-voters-intent b.s. that I harped about with people misspelling O’Donnell last year)
(9) Writing in the name of either candidate for President or Vice-President shall constitute a valid vote for the slate.”
Section 3. Amend Title 15, § 4976 of the Delaware Code by striking subsection (c) in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following:
“(c) Two clerks shall account on separate Write-in Vote Tally Sheets for each write-in vote for an office for a candidate on the ballot for that office, a declared write-in candidate for the office or for all other write-in votes for the office as Other Write-in Candidates.”
(take out the differentiation of declared and other and this is fine).
There that is. It isn’t always fun or easy to read through these bills…reading the constitution is more fun, trust me.
Liberal Geek, keep me on my toes.
Yes, I think health care is more important but this bill is also because it should go away.
Suppose a write-in vote is spontaneous, just like some ballots that are cast are … decided in the booth. How does having a declaration requirement treat spontaneity, simple … your write-in candidate doesn’t get the vote you just cast, sorry.
Maybe if I had a bus tour and a megaphone this would sound better …
FSP : “BUT there is one part of it that is legit: that declared write-in candidates need to abide by campaign finance laws.”
I agree 100%. I alluded to this with the nuclear gnat-killing analogy.
All you have to do is regulate according to whether there is any spending by or on behalf of a candidate to promote them in any manner in an election.
If you or anyone else on your behalf is spending money for anything promoting your name, likeness, or image as a political candidate for anything you would, past a certain $ amount, be obligated to report said spending in accordance with the campaign finance laws.
You don’t need to disenfranchise every person who might write in a candidate just to get that candidate to disclose campaign spending. This bill is total overkill.