Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Harlan1196
The judge is saying the laws are not related
Oh, I agree with that. But how does she conclude that one is applicable and the other isn't?

In other words, the plaintiffs did not have legal recourse to the law they filed their complaint under.
Why is that?

435 posted on 03/08/2012 1:30:07 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies ]


To: philman_36

Because Duke v Cleland says that the SoS has no jurisdiction over presidential primary ballots.

She conclude that one was not applicable because legal precedent says it was not applicable.


438 posted on 03/08/2012 1:33:01 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson