Posted on 05/01/2018 5:37:13 PM PDT by SMGFan
A federal judge's ruling has put #CO05 Rep. Doug Lamborn back on the GOP primary ballot.
I guess I’m glad he’s back on, but still POed that a federal judge can even rule on something like this which is WAY outside what constitutionally should be the purview of the judiciary.
The dispute as I recall was that the signature solicitor was living with his mother in Colorado, but had a domicile in California. Dubious at best for Colorado to keep him off the ballot. Now that being said, I don’t know who I’m voting for in the primary.
My district. Solidly GOP. Lamborn headed to another term with this latest turn of events.
CO-5 encompasses Colorado Springs and small town country west and south of the Front Range.
It involved federal not state office.
Whoever wins the GOP primary is basically a shoo-in in November.
CO-5 isn’t a swing district because of its demographics.
I hate to see people removed from ballots over election law technicalities, especially when mass cheating and voter fraud goes unchallenged.
Lamborn back on the ballot.
Who cares?
Congressman Lamborn and those who support him care.
He is one of the few good guys on the side of the citizens and the rule of law.
Who cares?
Just those of us who don’t want the Bush League Republicans to give our country away.
I suspect that this was a way for the Cheap Labor Express to get another stooge in office.
We need more like him and less like Martha McSallycain.
Plaintiffs say that they’re appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals, so Lamborn isn’t guaranteed a spot on the primary ballot yet.
By the way, the legal issue isn’t whether someone domiciled in California but living temporarily in his mom’s house in Colorado is a resident of Colorado for purposes of the state’s election law—the Supreme Court of Colorado said “no,” and a U.S. District Court would not have jurisdiction to overturn that decision—it’s whether Colorado’s requirement that petition-signature gatherers be residents of Colorado is a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. I think that the federal judge’s ruling is quite a stretch, given that Article I of the Constitution authorizes states to establish the time, place and manner of congressional elections (subject to Congress’s right to alter such regulations, which Congress has not done in the case of petition-gathering requirements), and the Colorado law does not abridge a potential candidate’s right to obtain access to the ballot so long as he follows the same rules that apply to everyone else. I hope that this terrible ruling is overturned by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals so that it doesn’t become a precedent for future judicial skulduggery.
Great!
Update: Three-judge panel of 10th Circuit Court of Appeals uphekd District Court ruling that Colorado’s requirement that petition-signature gatherers be state residents was unconstitutional, so Lamborn is being added back to the primary ballot. https://coloradopolitics.com/appeal-fails-to-remove-lamborn-from-primary-ballot/ I think that it’s a bad ruling that will lead to worse results in the future. I have nothing against Congressman Lamborn (although my preferred candidate in the primary is 2016 U.S. Senate nominee Darryl Glenn), but I don’t think that federal courts should tell states how to regulate the gathering of petition signatures (so long as there’s one set of rules for all candidates).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.