Bush May Be A Write in on More than one State Ballot (late Sept. 2 Convention-now California?)

Washington Post ^ | Sunday April 27, 2003 | Brian Faler

[ewing]

The biggest question may be California, where election officials plan to begin printing about 15 million ballots almost immediately after the August 26 deadline-and begin mailing absentee ballots Sept. 3

A spokeswoman for the Secretary of State said that she did not know of any effort to move the deadline or how the state might accommodate the Rebulicans.

'Its not clear at this point,' Terri Carbaugh said.

'It certainly poses a dilema.'

[ewing]

We might want to look into this one..

[priceofreedom]

Well we better figure this one out quick. I am in California and my vote will definately go to Bush (if I have the opportunity to do so.)

[#3Fan]

The Washington Post is wishfully thinking.

[Arkinsaw]

D.C. I wouldn't worry about. The other two are matters for concern.

[ewing]

Im not sure, Dubya is not accepting the nomination until Sept. 2, so that is after the August 26 deadline.

[ThreePuttinDude]

Sounds to me as if we should have taken care of the New Jersey problem with Lautenberg and said "Enough is Enough"

If you let the Rats get away with anything, it comes back to bite you in the arse......

[ewing]

I think the convention being in NYC probably has something to do with the date.

[ewing]

I hope it doesn't get that far.. (to SCOTUS)

[RoseofTexas]

BOY DOES IT EVER!! Something stinks BIG TIME!! Of all the times I've been voting I've never heard of a WRITE IN ballot for a sitting president! WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??!! Please set me straight if I'm wrong here. But I feel THE RATS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!! Please tell me the pubbies are NOT going to bend over and take it again?!

[ewing]

I personally like the notion of Bush starting the campaign on Labor Day Weekend, very traditional.

[ewing]

I would say Bush being a write in candidate in Califorina would be something to figure out.

[Mr. Mulliner]

One thing about California is that it is well known to be firmly in the hand of Democrats. If Bush doesn't appear on the ballot there, even if all the rules are followed, it can't help but make the Democrats look bad and very undemocratic.

[ewing]

I suppose Bush could accept the nomination on the first night of the convention..

[ThreePuttinDude]

The GOP's unusually late nominating convention -- it does not begin until Aug. 30 -- is the problem. Bush is not scheduled to accept his party's nomination until Sept. 2, 2004. That falls after the deadline for certifying presidential candidates not only in Alabama, but also in California, the District of Columbia and West Virginia. There are bills in the Alabama legislature to move its deadline from Aug. 31 to Sept. 5. But if, for some reason, they don't pass, the president would be forced to run there as a write-in candidate.

---

I'm sure that this problem will be brought to the attention of the needed officials before this get blown out of proportion.

[HitmanLV]

I think the convention being in NYC probably has something to do with the date.

Yep, and more to do with Rudy joining the ticket.

[ewing]

I haven't heard anything about West Virgina yet.

[ewing]

Is Rudy still pro-choice?

[deport]

You reckon President Bush will be the Nominee of the newly formed Independent GOP..... Heck that Party may have an internet ballot to select their candidate or who knows a mail in like the Reformers and PJB did..............