The Office of US Senator is a federal office and hence governed by federal law. Although states are permitted to write laws governing ballot access, they often write bad laws in this as is the case for Mississippi. Mississippi has no state compelling interest to bar McDaniel from filing as an independent or to bar voters from writing him in.
* US SUPREME COURT Norman v. Reed 1992
The right of citizens to create and develop new political parties derives from the First and Fourteenth Amendments and advances the constitutional interest of like-minded voters to gather in pursuit of common political ends, thus enlarging all voters’ opportunities to express their own political preferences. See, e.g., Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialists Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 . Therefore, a State may limit new parties’ access to the ballot only to the extent that a sufficiently weighty state interest justifies the restriction. Any severe restriction must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.
* US SUPREME COURT Anderson v. Celebrezze 1983
The Ohio filing deadline not only burdens the associational rights of independent voters and candidates, it also places a significant state-imposed restriction on a nationwide electoral process. A burden that falls unequally on independent candidates or on new or small political parties impinges, by its very nature, on associational choices protected by the First Amendment, and discriminates against those candidates and voters whose political preferences lie outside the existing political parties.
********************
Although in Burdick a ban on write-in voting was upheld it was made clear that such bans are valid only in the context that the state’s ballot access is constitutional in all other respects.
In the case of Mississippi, Cochran has ‘unclean hands’ by his violation of both state and federal law, and his opponent is an established and viable political candidate having garnered more than Cochran with close to 50% and more of the republican party voters. These facts belie the presumption of fair elections and allow federal courts to apply close scrutiny.
McDaniel can seek an immediate injunction on several counts barring Mississippi from banning his right to an independent candidacy and banning voters from being counted in a write-on his behalf.
Mississippi’s ballot laws are egregiously unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the context of allowing violation of law to restrict access. Thad Cochran is not permitted to violate state and federal law to fraudulently win a federal office and have his state apply ballot access restrictions to his victim, else the state would be implicit in the crime. Moreover, it is the burden of the state to prove its ballot access restrictions in the face of clear violation of law. The injunction will be granted immediately based on the clarity of the evidence of these election violations and for protection of state election integrity.
Mississippi can have its day in court but not at the expense of statistically significant numbers of Mississippians losing the right to elect their candidate of choice. In order to avert the effects of a federal injunction the state has options; 1) is to offer mediation between the two republican candidates to reach an agreement going forward and 2) refuse to certify the election results and order a new election. To do otherwise puts the state at risk of a federal injunction and ensuing and expanding oversight by a federal court over state election affairs for years to come.
The players in Mississippi elections have shown their blatant corruption. They were shortsighted in ignoring federal voting statutes that can come down on them like a ton of bricks.
It appears from what you have posted that my information was indeed correct - Mississippi does not allow write ins, and it is past the independent filing date.
In order to continue his candidacy, McDaniel must win in court - which is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.
It seems there are various remedies that could be granted if and when he wins his case:
Re-run the fraudulent run off
Allow an Independent run My McDaniel
Allow a write in ballot.
But all require a court ruling based on McDaniel’s claim of election fraud.
WOW!!! This is great news. I’m sure that McDaniel’s lawyers are aware of this; are they not? This would make a great Post as it’s own Thread. Thanks so much for the info.