NEW: Biden Is Off the Ohio General Election Ballot

[Cow Poke]

NEW: Biden Is Off the Ohio General Election Ballot After State Legislature Tells Him to Pound Sand

For months, the president and his party have been pushing the legislature to pass a "fix" that would allow him to make the state deadline in early August. On Wednesday, the Republican-led legislature justifiably told him to pound sand.

The fix won’t happen through the legislature, said Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens, R-Kitts Hill, and Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, during separate gaggles Tuesday morning.

“There’s just not the will to do that from the legislature,” Stephens said.

Russo said she was skeptical the fix was ever going to happen in the legislature.

“We’ve seen the dysfunction here in this place,” she said. “And I think we’ve seen that folks have not been able to put aside partisanship and hyper-partisanship and infighting. … I think at this point, you’re probably going to see either, you know, some sort of inner party effects or perhaps court action.”

At issue is the fact that the Democrat National Committee (DNC) flouted known state law in Ohio and scheduled the close of its nominating convention on August 22nd. The deadline to file as a candidate for the general election ballot is August 7th. That means Biden will not technically be the nominee in time to qualify.

While Biden was never going to be competitive in Ohio, his absence could depress turnout, leading to losses in down-ballot races for his party. Notably, all of this is happening with the backdrop of multiple Democrat-led states attempting to forcibly remove Donald Trump from the ballot. Whether this is meant to be payback or not, it's certainly understandable that Republicans wouldn't want to stick their neck out for Biden.

Naturally, Ohio's moderate Republican governor still wants to see a "fix" happen.

However, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said the legislature needs to make the fix.

“I have every confidence that it’s going to get done,” he said Tuesday. “No one should worry, they’re going to be able to vote for the president or the former president, whoever they want to vote for. You know, this is not going to be a situation where the president’s name is not on the ballot. So it’s either going to be done by the court, or it’s going to be done by the legislature.”

The legislature doesn't need to do a thing. No one made the DNC arrogantly schedule its convention in conflict with Ohio's ballot deadline. If they are so worried about it, they can skip the formalities and nominate Biden earlier. To change state law to appease a political candidate would be completely out of bounds. As for a court doing it, I'm not sure how a court could justify simply ignoring the written law of the state, though it wouldn't surprise me.

[rogue06]

I'd think that if the Democrats simply moved the date of their nominating convention they could put old Joe on the ballot. It'll be darn inconvenient and possibly costly but then it wasn't exactly a secret that they had to have it before August 7th.

Still, typical Democrats. Ignore the law and then demand it be changed to accommodate them.

[Cow Poke]

I'd think that if the Democrats simply moved the date of their nominating convention they could put old Joe on the ballot. It'll be darn inconvenient and possibly costly but then it wasn't exactly a secret that they had to have it before August 7th.

Still, typical Democrats. Ignore the law and then demand it be changed to accommodate them.

Kinda like - borrow money to go to college - demand that somebody else foot the bill.
Or like - have sex as often as you want - if you become pregnant, kill the baby.

[CivilDiscourse]

NEW: Biden Is Off the Ohio General Election Ballot After State Legislature Tells Him to Pound Sand

For months, the president and his party have been pushing the legislature to pass a "fix" that would allow him to make the state deadline in early August. On Wednesday, the Republican-led legislature justifiably told him to pound sand.

The fix won’t happen through the legislature, said Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens, R-Kitts Hill, and Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, during separate gaggles Tuesday morning.

“There’s just not the will to do that from the legislature,” Stephens said.

Russo said she was skeptical the fix was ever going to happen in the legislature.

“We’ve seen the dysfunction here in this place,” she said. “And I think we’ve seen that folks have not been able to put aside partisanship and hyper-partisanship and infighting. … I think at this point, you’re probably going to see either, you know, some sort of inner party effects or perhaps court action.”

At issue is the fact that the Democrat National Committee (DNC) flouted known state law in Ohio and scheduled the close of its nominating convention on August 22nd. The deadline to file as a candidate for the general election ballot is August 7th. That means Biden will not technically be the nominee in time to qualify.

While Biden was never going to be competitive in Ohio, his absence could depress turnout, leading to losses in down-ballot races for his party. Notably, all of this is happening with the backdrop of multiple Democrat-led states attempting to forcibly remove Donald Trump from the ballot. Whether this is meant to be payback or not, it's certainly understandable that Republicans wouldn't want to stick their neck out for Biden.

Naturally, Ohio's moderate Republican governor still wants to see a "fix" happen.

However, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said the legislature needs to make the fix.

“I have every confidence that it’s going to get done,” he said Tuesday. “No one should worry, they’re going to be able to vote for the president or the former president, whoever they want to vote for. You know, this is not going to be a situation where the president’s name is not on the ballot. So it’s either going to be done by the court, or it’s going to be done by the legislature.”

The legislature doesn't need to do a thing. No one made the DNC arrogantly schedule its convention in conflict with Ohio's ballot deadline. If they are so worried about it, they can skip the formalities and nominate Biden earlier. To change state law to appease a political candidate would be completely out of bounds. As for a court doing it, I'm not sure how a court could justify simply ignoring the written law of the state, though it wouldn't surprise me.

Anyone remember the line used when Democrats voted to remove McCarthy from speakership....

House Democrats didn't bail him out but no one should have really expected them to.

This was a simple, long-existing, bright-line rule. Do <X> before <date>.

Many on the liberal persuasion here have been CLEAR on rule following being required for ballot access:

In that sense the constitution sets out who's allowed to run for office, and it isn't everyone (e.g. must be over 35 years in age), and it's Trump's own fault if by his own actions he's put himself in breach of its rules for running for office.

There is nothing unethical about making sure that third parties follow the rules.

But no candidate gets to flout statutory or constitutional requirements just on the basis of ignorance or thinking the law shouldn't apply to them.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

Anyone remember the line used when Democrats voted to remove McCarthy from speakership....



This was a simple, long-existing, bright-line rule. Do <X> before <date>.

Many on the liberal persuasion here have been CLEAR on rule following being required for ballot access:

Amen! So mote it be!

[Mountain Man]

I can't see the Democrat party just sitting back and letting things go forward as they are. As noted, they'll probably officially nominate Joe prior to the convention and then go ahead with the convention as planned since the conventions are mostly a formality anyway. Although if they were planning on booting Joe and introducing a new candidate at the convention, this could certainly upset their apple cart.

[rogue06]

Anyone remember the line used when Democrats voted to remove McCarthy from speakership....



This was a simple, long-existing, bright-line rule. Do <X> before <date>.

Many on the liberal persuasion here have been CLEAR on rule following being required for ballot access:

B-but, but... This is different. This time it affects us!


Get ready to hear whining about how this is somehow election interference. That the people are being denied their right to vote for Biden. Never mind that it'll come from those who were cheering on Colorado removing OMB.

[Sam]

I believe this topic had been previously introduced:

It would be ironic if after trying so hard to keep Trump off of ballots in various states, that Biden ended up not being on ballots due to the DNC's own incompetence.

That's not irony, given the fact that neither the Biden campaign nor the DNC were parties to the relevant lawsuits.

Irony would involve people bitterly complaining that a legal effort to impose a section of law on Donald Trump's candidacy is illegitimate partisan targeting and then ignoring (or gloating over) Ohio's GOP legislature refusing to issue DNC a waiver over a formality, after having issued exactly the same waiver to its own national convention a few years earlier.

Wait, that's not irony either. Well, shoot, I'm sure there's a word for it.

-Sam

The law's the law and the DNC will have to find a way to conform to the law if Republicans refuse to grant Democrats the same waivers they offer themselves. But we sure don't need to hear that from people who whined that applying the law to other candidates was illegitimate, unfair, and undemocratic.

-Sam

[Sparko]

Anyone remember the line used when Democrats voted to remove McCarthy from speakership....



This was a simple, long-existing, bright-line rule. Do <X> before <date>.

Many on the liberal persuasion here have been CLEAR on rule following being required for ballot access:

Ouch.

[CivilDiscourse]

Amen! So mote it be!

I mean let me provide a list of liberal posters who came to the defense of Michigan Republicans forced off the ballot when they got defrauded by the signature company and had fake signatures given to them:

...

It's pretty long....barely fit it in that box.

[Sparko]

I believe this topic had been previously introduced:






The law's the law and the DNC will have to find a way to conform to the law if Republicans refuse to grant Democrats the same waivers they offer themselves. But we sure don't need to hear that from people who whined that applying the law to other candidates was illegitimate, unfair, and undemocratic.

-Sam

Sam is right even when he is wrong. Again!

[CivilDiscourse]

I believe this topic had been previously introduced:






The law's the law and the DNC will have to find a way to conform to the law if Republicans refuse to grant Democrats the same waivers they offer themselves. But we sure don't need to hear that from people who whined that applying the law to other candidates was illegitimate, unfair, and undemocratic.

-Sam

Sam, I believe that has been explained to you before. There is a difference between a bright-line rule that requires no interpretation, debate, etc. to apply, and one where people are having to write entire legal papers in attempts to justify why a particular law should apply, and others write entire legal papers as to why the law doesn't apply. One that requires interpretation of undefined terms, and entire legal theories be applied to determine if they THINK it applies to the situation.

I know that nuance is lost on you.

[Sam]

Sam, I believe that has been explained to you before. There is a difference between a bright-line rule that requires no interpretation, debate, etc. to apply, and one where people are having to write entire legal papers in attempts to justify why a particular law should apply, and others write entire legal papers as to why the law doesn't apply. One that requires interpretation of undefined terms, and entire legal theories be applied to determine if they THINK it applies to the situation.

I know that nuance is lost on you.

It must be downright painful for you to consistently attempt to find hypocrisy in others. At least do yourself the favor of not stepping on the same rake twice. The previous conversation:

But that's not what they are doing - by their own admission. They want those candidates removed because they will take away votes from Democrats. Your "obeys the law" is just a means toward that end - and is only used against non Democrats.

Republicans aren't doing that. Third-party candidates aren't doing that. Only Democrats are trying to remove the competition. They are threatening our representative government by removing choice, just like communist governments do.

I'm sorry for not remembering exactly but wasn't there a recent thread regarding the Trump campaign's efforts to keep Hayley off the Indiana primary ballot?

Source: ‘Literally off his rocker’: Why Trump is fixated on Indiana. Adam Wren. Politico. 2024.02.06

The actual crux of the issue is pretty straightforward. For days, Trump has been suggesting that Haley failed to qualify for the Indiana primary ballot, saying she was “scrambling in Indiana with democrat county clerk offices to ‘verify’ signatures” after the fact, or even that she had “forgot to apply.” He has gone so far as to have his campaign’s attorney threaten litigation to challenge Haley’s ballot status.

But Trump’s allegation is based on a distortion of Indiana law. While signatures to get ballot access were due by Jan. 30, the filing deadline isn’t until this Friday, meaning that Haley is still on track to qualify for the state’s ballot.

© Copyright Original Source

And we just had the thread about the transgender candidate who was removed for not supplying their previous name.

If candidates don't meet the lawful requirements to hold a particular office or appear on a particular ballot, it's not undemocratic to apply the law. The law itself is the product of democratic governance.

-Sam

Hmmm...

Originally posted by Sam View Post
If candidates don't meet the lawful requirements to hold a particular office or appear on a particular ballot, it's not undemocratic to apply the law. The law itself is the product of democratic governance.

-Sam

Again, I am aware of my own view. My holding a consistent principle doesn't change the hypocrisy of others who don't.

-Sam

[Sparko]

It must be downright painful for you to consistently attempt to find hypocrisy in others. At least do yourself the favor of not stepping on the same rake twice. The previous conversation:

Here, nobody is actively trying to keep Biden off the ballot. They had a law already in place with a deadline, that applies to all candidates. All the DNC has to do is obey the law and Biden is on the ballot. Whether Biden gets on the ballot is entirely up to the DNC. There is no campaign to try to remove him from the ballot like there was with Trump. It is entirely passive on the part of Ohio. They have a law. The DNC can obey it or flout it. It's their choice. They still have plenty of time to fix it.

[CivilDiscourse]

Here, nobody is actively trying to keep Biden off the ballot. They had a law already in place with a deadline, that applies to all candidates. All the DNC has to do is obey the law and Biden is on the ballot. Whether Biden gets on the ballot is entirely up to the DNC. There is no campaign to try to remove him from the ballot like there was with Trump. It is entirely passive on the part of Ohio. They have a law. The DNC can obey it or flout it. It's their choice. They still have plenty of time to fix it.

I mean, to take a note from Sam's playbook. "Republicans won't bail him out, nor should he expect them too."