Constitution Party Nominees Need Court Win to Make Ballot

Constitution Party logoRichard Winger of Ballot Access News reports that the South Dakota Constitution Party nominated two candidates at its convention Saturday*: one for U.S. Senate and one for Legislature. A source tells me the Legislative candidate will be running for State House. Both of these nominations are extralegal and depend on Judge Karen Schreier ruling in favor of the Constitution and Libertarian parties in their lawsuit against the state’s ballot access laws for new parties.

That’s a frail nail on which to hang one’s ballot hopes. Those conditional nominations also miss the opportunity the Constitution Party had to legally place a candidate on the ballot for Public Utilities Commission without having to win a court case. Even if PUC isn’t as fun as Senate or Legislature, it’s still the Constitution Party’s guaranteed shot at a place on the ballot and a place on the podia alongside Republican Commissioner Chris Nelson and Democratic challenger Henry Red Cloud in the candidate debates this fall.

The Constitution Party (whose members, for my convenience, may be adopting the noun Constitutionists… which still sticks them with the official abbreviate CON) is also missing the chance for some immediate publicity. Their official blog says nothing about their convention. The press hasn’t received any releases. And as of this writing, the two nominees have not made any public declaration. Even if these nominations are conditional, the candidates should be hitting the airwaves, publicizing their party’s vote of confidence in them and their desire to get on the ballot. Publicity may not win the court case on which their candidacies hinge, but publicity will get people interested in those candidates and the alternative the Constitution Party offers to amoral and ill-educated Trumpism (and hey, Constitutionists—you pride yourselves on moral principles and intelligent reading of the Constitution, right?). Publicity could also motivate some donations to the candidates and to the party to cover the legal costs of winning the court fight to gain ballot access.

Come on, Constitution Party! Post those names! Let us know who’s carrying your banner! For your party, any press is good press (as long as your nominees aren’t Annette Bosworth and Chad Haber).

*Update 2016.12.22 16:40 CST: When I wrote this article on July 11, Winger’s article read, “Nevertheless, on June 9, the Constitution Party did hold its state convention and it did nominate a candidate for U.S. Senate and one for the legislature.” Winger has since revised his post to read, “…it did nominate a potential [emphasis mine] candidate for U.S. Senate and one for the legislature.”


20 Responses to Constitution Party Nominees Need Court Win to Make Ballot

  1. Can’t wait to find out if Lora Hubbel is running for state house or US Senate. Her conspiratorial (also abreviated as CON) nuttiness is always worth a laugh. Mr. Sibson is probably the other candidate.

  2. My recent stint as a Democrat lasted just over two months (May 6 to July 8). I’ve been asked to try to keep some information out of the public domain for now, but I believe I’m welcome to confirm that I’m the Constitution Party nominee for the U.S. Senate.

    Lora Hubbel has been elected to succeed Lori Stacey as the state party chair (with Lori’s support). Neither is the nominee for the state house, and to the best of my knowledge, Annette Bosworth, Chad Haber and Steve Sibson aren’t even members of the party. :-)

    The convention included a half-hour back-and-forth via Skype with the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee Darrell Castle, who impresses me as eminently competent and well-informed:
    http://castle2016.com/darrell-castle/

  3. You really are all over the map with your voter registration, Mr. Evans. Good luck to you.

  4. You really are all over the map with your voter registration, Mr. Evans. Good luck to you.

    Thank you.

  5. “The convention included a half-hour back-and-forth via Skype with the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee Darrell Castle, who impresses me as eminently competent and well-informed”
    Does Ms. Hubbel come across this way to you as well?

  6. Yet two former two-term liberal republican governors that mastered in cutting the cost of government, and were very popular, will be on the ballot. They also successfully ran businesses. Consider Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as honest, non-discriminatory, and with good judgment contrast to the riff-raff from the main parties.

  7. Yes, the Libertarian Party has a strong ticket this year if it can just get people to look beyond the 2-party system. I don’t see them getting to 270 electoral votes.

    That said, Gary Johnson has a narrow path to victory. If he can pick up a few strategic electoral votes and hold both Hillary and Trumpy McTrumpface under 270 electoral votes the House of Representatives may just choose him (from among the top three vote getters). Unfortunately he won’t be able to bring Bill Weld with him as VP under that scenario, because the senate chooses the VP from among the top 2 vote getters for VP.

  8. I’d written:

    The convention included a half-hour back-and-forth via Skype with the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee Darrell Castle, who impresses me as eminently competent and well-informed:
    http://castle2016.com/darrell-castle/

    “Dicta” asks:

    Does Ms. Hubbel come across this way to you as well?

    We haven’t interacted enough for me to apply the eminently adverb, but Lora seems competent and well-informed.

  9. Kurt Evans for Senate—that’s news! Kurt, thanks for breaking that here. Questions:

    (1) Can you get the Con State House candidate to come here and make a similar announcement?

    (2) What changed between last October, when you announced you would not run for Senate, and last weekend?

    (3) Do you anticipate filing papers with the FEC this month, or will you wait to file and fundraise until Judge Schreier rules on the ballot access lawsuit?

  10. barry freed

    As in 2010, Democrats have reduced me (and many millions of others) to something I have found unappealing in the past, a single issue voter. There are so many more important issues than gun laws facing America, but the Bill of Rights is too vital to our survival. Dems can’t articulate or don’t have any solutions that aren’t pure fantasy and emotion. Repubs let Obama seize guns from Vets. I can’t vote “D”, won’t vote “R”.

    The DFP cyber bully squad will lose their minds, and fling their best, but what is your 2A position?

  11. “pure fantasy and emotion”? Barry, I think you have me confused with the Constitution Party. The Democratic Party and I can articulate real policy solutions.

    Asking me my 2A position is a complete diversion from the topic of this post. You know I find the Second Amendment far less practically useful to preserving democracy and civil rights than the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourthteenth. That doesn’t mean I’m seeking repeal. It does mean that elevating 2A to single-issue status misses the boat on a lot of other, more practical policies on which Democrats offer better policies that would do more good for more Americans.

    But does your single-issuism mean, Barry, that you’ll vote for Darrell Castle, whose party supports repeal of all federal firearms legislation?

  12. Rest easy Barry. Regardless of the outcome of the Presidential race and senate races nationwide, Republicans will control the US House next year. From that perch of power they will defend the rights of the criminally insane to purchase and possess any firearm currently available – which is essentially what they are doing now when they say that there should be no background checks at gun shows.

  13. “You know I find the Second Amendment far less practically useful to preserving democracy and civil rights than the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourthteenth.”
    Conspicuous absence of no housing and quartering soldiers, you freakin communist.

  14. Cory asks:

    Can you get the Con State House candidate to come here and make a similar announcement?

    It looks like it’s too late for that:
    http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/07/12/constitution-party-nominates-wayne-schmidt-for-district-23-house/

    What changed between last October, when you announced you would not run for Senate, and last weekend?

    I’d only announced that I was ending my independent campaign, not that I wouldn’t run. I’m not saying I was planning this all along—I wasn’t—but I’d like to clarify that I’m not breaking my word.

    The biggest change since October is that I’ve found a way to participate in challenging South Dakota’s immoral ballot-access restrictions without self-financing that challenge.

    Do you anticipate filing papers with the FEC this month …

    I’m thinking about it but not necessarily expecting it. The FEC is a royal pain, and I’ll probably avoid dealing with them as long as I believe I can do so without getting fined.

    … or will you wait to file and fundraise until Judge Schreier rules on the ballot access lawsuit?

    I’ve been asked to keep public comments related to the lawsuit to a bare minimum, and I’m going to punt on this question for now.

    “barry freed” asks:

    The DFP cyber bully squad will lose their minds, and fling their best, but what is your 2A position?

    It’s essentially the same as the position at Cory’s link above:
    http://www.constitutionparty.com/gun-control-1/

  15. Hee hee, Dicta!

    I probably take the Third Amendment for granted, thanks to 220+ years of our government taking that Amendment so seriously that we’ve never had a problem with it.

    I appreciate Kurt’s effort to maintain absolute integrity in his words. He’d be a better Senator than Thune. But tell your wienie lawyers to jump in the lake. Come on, what harm will public comments about the ballot access suit do?

  16. Cory writes:

    But tell your wienie lawyers to jump in the lake. Come on, what harm will public comments about the ballot access suit do?

    No offense, Cory, but no comment.

  17. Not even meta-comments? Lawyers! :-)

  18. barry who ya voting for?

  19. if no r or d?

  20. Cory writes:

    Not even meta-comments? Lawyers! :-)

    Ha! They probably won’t stop me from discussing the issues that underlie the lawsuit, but I’m trying to stay away from the lawsuit itself.