3 votes

Sore Loser Laws

Sore loser laws are different in every state.

That said there are some people here under the impression that no state sore loser law could effect Ron Paul because "it's a national election".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Candidates have to file in each state for a STATE election of ELECTORS. It is the STATE ELECTORS who elect the president.

Ballot access to each state's ballot is certainly a STATE matter, not a federal one.

Therefore, it is entirely possible, depending on how a given state's law is written, for a sore loser law to affect a presidential candidate.

Again, it depends on a state by state basis. However, if anyone tells you it's "impossible", they are woefully ignorant and wrong. Do not let yourself be deceived.

There's another reason this is important and it has to do with write-in status. If you plan on writing in RP, CHECK YOUR STATE LAW. You most likely (most states) need to register him as a WRITE IN CANDIDATE.

There are deadlines for write in candidate registration.

CARING is an action verb. Therefore, if you CARE to write in RP, then you will TAKE ACTION to ensure that write in votes count.

If you do not take this action, then it means you're just full of hot air, but don't care enough to ensure people who write him in will have their votes counted.

All of the above notwithstanding, it is possible an RP write in candidacy may be precluded by a state sore loser law. Which is why it's even more important to KNOW YOUR STATE LAWS.

Do not assume ANYTHING and do not let out of staters tell you about your state's laws unless they can quote them and link to the quote.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If he doesn't get the nomination...

...& decides not to run 3rd party, he will most certainly endorse someone like he did in 2008. If these things come to pass, I will vote for whom he endorses just like I did in 2008. Just makes sense to me I guess.

Richard Winger at BallotAccess.org says none of them apply...

He says,
December 28th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
"#5, the South Carolina “sore loser” law, section 7-11-210, says, “Every candidate for selection as a nominee of any political party for any state office, U.S. Senator, member of Congress or solicitor, to be voted for at any party primary election, shall file with and place in the possession of the treasurer of the state committee by 12:00 noon on March 30 a notice or pledge…which says ‘I hereby pledge myself to abide by the results of the primary…” By its very terms it doesn’t apply to presidential primaries.

And even if it did, states can’t impose “sore loser” laws on candidates in presidential primaries, because the true candidates in November are the candidates for Presidential Elector. The presidential candidates’ names are on the November ballot, not in their capacity as candidates, but as labels for competing slates of presidential electors. The presidential electors aren’t sore losers. And they have a First Amendment right to tell the world whom they will vote for in December in the electoral college if they are elected to the electoral college."
Read the full discussion here: http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/12/28/gary-johnson-formall...

Did you not read the post?

The electors are who are being elected.

Electors are the representatives of the STATES who elect the president.

States' electors are elected by the STATES which means state laws apply.

Again, you need to check your OWN state's laws and not rely on others to tell you about your own state.

Check you OWN state.

I read your post - now you can read up at BallotAccess.org, or any other website, if YOU want.

This is why I have been supporting Americans Elect.

If anyone has the "juice" to get "sore loser" laws overturned, it is Americans Elect.

I have been advocating suits to improve ballot access since 2007, but nobody seems to be paying attention.

Have you tried in your own state?

If yes, please educate us on your successes and lessons learned!!!

If no, then explain what you're posting about and why you're posting about it.

Let's get specific

Let's get specific. Exactly which state (or states) would bar a third party Ron Paul ticket because of sore loser laws?

There are zero lawyers or people who know all 50 states laws

So let's get that straight.

It's a state by state thing. Why don't you check your OWN state laws and report back and provide a link?

I mean if you're unwilling to check even your own state's laws why are you asking anyone else to check theirs?

Lastly, it is a STATE who elects their own ELECTORS. That makes it a STATE race.

Thanks for playing!

Hey, you're the one making

Hey, you're the one making the affirmative case that at least some sore loser laws would keep RP from the ballot. Since you, in opposition to others, make this affirmative claim, at the very least you need to back it up with at least one example from the fifty states.....that is if you want to persuade anyone on this site.

If you knew ANYTHING......

.....then you'd know the laws of your own state.

If you know that, I commend you, or if you go find out, I commend you for that.

Post your state's laws here with a link. That would be productive, educational and positive.

If you do not care enough to even do THAT for your OWN STATE, then what are you going on about, frankly, other than to propagate ignorance and laze?

Even though you made a claim

Even though you made a claim e.g. sore losers will prevent RP from getting on the ballot in some cases AND did not back up this claim with any evidence, I'll meet you more than half way. Here's the deal: I'll find out what my state law says and, in exchange, you'll identify one, just one, state that would keep RP off the ballot through a sore loser law. Deal?

What did you find out about your own state's law?

Can you let us know? Can you post a link so we can discuss?

I'll let you know by the end

I'll let you know by the end of the week. Feel free to pester me.

Very good points. Bump for

Very good points. Bump for education's sake.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Thanks!

.