Warren Lynch Shitpost General - TRUE and HONEST (former) John Flynt for Congress campaign worker

[AnOminous]

Sigh. For the several-th time.
1) While running from out of district isn't *illegal* in some states, it's still a really BAD idea
2) In Massachusetts, you have to live in district to get on the BALLOT. It's literally the top requirement of about 15 in MA:
https://imgur.com/a/JhifOVr

That's a bit ambiguous. What's the actual law?

It says "the district from which you plan to run." Not the office which you're actually running for. It's unconstitutional to add a district residency requirement to the minimal constitutional qualifications for running for a House Rep position, and California had its own attempt to do this thrown out in 2000 or so.

I'm aware that ballot access is a different issue. However, the Supreme Court threw out a ballot access requirement attempting to establish ballot access restrictions based on a term limit in U.S. v. Thornton in 1995, treating a ballot access restriction for this purpose as being effectively the same as a prohibition.

Party primaries may differ from this and I don't know the situation in Massachusetts specifically, nor are unconstitutional laws necessarily instantly thrown out unless they're challenged.

I'm just wondering what the actual law saying this is. That thing is just a checklist, not a law.

 

[W person cow]

That's a bit ambiguous. What's the actual law?
I'm just wondering what the actual law saying this is. That thing is just a checklist, not a law.

Not sure. But whether it's constitutional or not, Massachusetts is enforcing it, and has for years.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/Candidates-Guide-generic.pdf

 

[Dimethyl Ketone]

Not sure. But whether it's constitutional or not, Massachusetts is enforcing it, and has for years.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/Candidates-Guide-generic.pdf

Dude-bro, are you this dense?

Your own document has the same answer we are telling you is constitutional law!
This took me literally 14 seconds to find. I timed myself.

Notice the residency requirement states "must be an inhabitant of Massachusetts when elected" -- per federal law.

This is a mixed document that covers both federal and state positions. Like Brianna, I can only guess your confusion is not knowing the difference.


EDIT: Okay, I think I may have found your confusion along the lines with not knowing the difference between the state senate and the federal senate.

Here is the district law of which you speak, on the next page (these are 14 and 15 for your reference)

 

[RodgerDodger]

So Massachusetts has a residency requirement for House members that supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Why do I not believe you?

Edit To Add:

From the office of the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, here are the requirements for appearing on a primary ballot or special election ballot for the U.S. House of Representatives.

United States Representative

• Must be at least 25 years of age.
• Must be a registered voter.
• Must be a U.S. citizen for at least 7 years prior to the date of the election.
• Must be an inhabitant of Massachusetts when elected. [Emphasis added.]
• Requires certified signatures of at least 2000 voters registered in the district.

And yes, Warren, you complete dumbass, to appear on a primary ballot you have to get the signatures of three clerks in the town where you live, but that town doesn't have to be in the House district where you're running, which would violate the Constitution.

Specifically:

"A candidate must prove party affiliation by filing with the Secretary of the Commonwealth a certificate of party enrollment signed or stamped by at least three local election officials of the city or town where the candidate is registered."

For someone who pretends to be knowledgeable about these matters, your ignorance is surprisingly vast..

Yes, Massachusetts and every state is free to add certain ballot access requirements. Under the Costitution the States manage and set standards for their own elections. The State May add requirements, Residency, Signature Requirements, etc, so long as they are applied evenly and are not in conflict with Federal. The Constitution requires Reps to be from the State. The States May add to that that they must be from the District. Few do as the Districts shift every 10 years so it can get strange. People are generally smart enough to recognize the difference between a District line shifting from under their Congressman’s House after a census, and a carpetbagger.

 

[break these cuffs]

Dude-bro, are you this dense?

Your own document has the same answer we are telling you is constitutional law!
This took me literally 14 seconds to find. I timed myself.

View attachment 519069

Notice the residency requirement states "must be an inhabitant of Massachusetts when elected" -- per federal law.

This is a mixed document that covers both federal and state positions. Like Brianna, I can only guess your confusion is not knowing the difference.


EDIT: Okay, I think I may have found your confusion along the lines with not knowing the difference between the state senate and the federal senate.

Here is the district law of which you speak, on the next page (these are 14 and 15 for your reference)

View attachment 519071

The issue is whether or not you can get on the ballot if you don't live in the district. Warren is asserting you can't and there is a SCOTUS ruling that says such a law is unconstitutional.

 

[Dimethyl Ketone]

The issue is whether or not you can get on the ballot if you don't live in the district. Warren is asserting you can't and there is a SCOTUS ruling that says such a law is unconstitutional.

I'm aware. This document is about getting on the ballet. The getting on the ballet section, in fact, looks like this:

It says:
1. You need to file is November
2. You must be a member of a party to be on the primary election. If you are not a member of a party, your only concern is the final election requirements
3. You need signatures. Please see chart on page 13, (where this is continued) This is actually wrong and it continued on page 14, page 13 is a runoff from a previous page.
4. Page 14 and 15 put the remainder of the restrictions on ballet access, which I posted above.

It's this dudebro stoner "woah dude that sounds cool" stuff that you believe without thinking that upsets me, Warren.
You have the damn document. You could have gone through it yourself. But you didn't, you needed me to do it because you are SO SURE of yourself that Mass has been breaking the oldest law in the land for god knows how long and nobody has done anything about it, and that's why they need YOU! Well, reality is there are a lot of people interested in politics who do things and such a CONSTITUTION AMMENDMENT REQUIRING THING, which requires 2/3 of the states approval, would never stand. If it did, California would be split by now and charging rainbow tax.


EDIT: So is this thing buried now?

 

[AnOminous]

The States May add to that that they must be from the District.

No, they can't.

The Ninth Circuit threw out an attempt to do this by California in 2000.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1471687.html

This decision is consistent with previous Supreme Court precedent in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, which threw out a ballot access measure which purported to add term limits to the constitutional requirements to run for U.S. House Rep.

 

[Dr. Merkwurdichliebe]

Yes, Massachusetts and every state is free to add certain ballot access requirements. Under the Costitution the States manage and set standards for their own elections. The State May add requirements, Residency, Signature Requirements, etc, so long as they are applied evenly and are not in conflict with Federal. The Constitution requires Reps to be from the State. The States May add to that that they must be from the District. Few do as the Districts shift every 10 years so it can get strange. People are generally smart enough to recognize the difference between a District line shifting from under their Congressman’s House after a census, and a carpetbagger.

As @Dimethyl Ketone has pointed out, states can do whatever they want with requirements for state and local offices. States cannot override the U.S. Constitution when it comes to the requirements for election to the U.S. House and Senate. It's been tried, and the courts have struck those laws down every time.

The only way to require House members to reside in their districts is to amend the Constitution.

The Constitution initially required that U.S. senators be elected by the state legislatures. And that's how it was done until the 17th Amendment was ratifed in 1913. Not a single state defied the Constitution and directly elected a senator before that amendment was approved.

Please provide us with a link to the election laws in amy state that require members of the U.S. House to reside in the district they they represent. Saying "this is true because I say it is" ain't good enough.

EDIT: Ninje'd on some points by the usual suspects.

 

[W person cow]

Read the rest of that small, easy to read document you are screenshotting.

I can't believe y'all are so dense that you have explained to you four times that being federally eligible to run is not the same thing as getting on the ballot, and you keep arguing about how you can't bar someone from running.
Yes you can't bar them from running. They just don't get on the BALLOT.
To get on the ballot in Massachusetts, (not "ballet" lol), you have to:
-be certified as a registered voter in a town in your district
-have that certification signed by 3 people at the City Clerk's office
-get 2000 signatures (amount varies by office)
-have all your signatures certified in both the town and by the state
-have been enrolled in your party for 6 months if running in a primary
-plus about 6-7 other things. None of these are in the Constitution, they are state ballot access requirements. One of which is that you *also* fulfill the Constitutional requirements. But it's both/and.
You can claim that it's unconstitutional, but if so, Massachusetts has still been getting away with it for decades.

By the way, the US Constitution is largely based on the Massachusetts constitution, which is a much older and better document, with more freedoms in it than the watered down federal one. Which makes us kind of the liberal version of Texas sometimes, in that we do a lot of fighting for "state's rights", and have openly defied the Federal government numerous times
Not that I'm sure we are doing so in this case. I'm not a lawyer, just an uptight "sperg". But I do know that these are the state rules as enforced. Because I was forced to learn them all in close detail, to save Brianna from completely not getting on the ballot, because she didn't want to bother learning them.
Frank helped a little bit, but he also made several shockingly negligent mistakes which could have killed the whole campaign's ballot eligibility.

Also, I guarantee that if Massachusetts did not have these extra residency rules, Brianna would still be living in fancy Arlington and not Dedham. I don't think she likes the 8th at all.

Side note, you may have noticed Brianna saying she's not going to take corporate donations. That's not as "brave" as it sounds, because Massachusetts bars ALL candidates from taking corporate donations

Dude-bro, are you this dense?

Your own document has the same answer we are telling you is constitutional law!
This took me literally 14 seconds to find. I timed myself.

Might want to take a few more seconds there, sailor. What you screenshotted is literally the constitutional requirements page, so of course those are the constitutional requirements. Try reading the other pages too, there are also STATE requirements. Which is what I'm trying to tell you

OK I guess I'm done with you Warren. You've been going in circles for a while now, you seem to have run out of stuff to say. Oh well, it's good to confirm my suspicions that the inner sphere of politics is a bunch of politician's exceptional cousins.

Ok well I thought you were mostly pretty interesting to talk to. But go for it. And you are right about the exceptional cousins.
For example, over 70% of judges in this state went to one law school, Suffolk. Which gives extra admissions chances to people whose relatives went there. And since the law dropouts go into politics...

 

[Dr. Merkwurdichliebe]

Read the rest of that small, easy to read document you are screenshotting.

I can't believe y'all are so dense that you have explained to you four times that being federally eligible to run is not the same thing as getting on the ballot, and you keep arguing about how you can't bar someone from running.
Yes you can't bar them from running. They just don't get on the BALLOT.
To get on the ballot in Massachusetts, (not "ballet" lol), you have to:
-be certified as a registered voter in a town in your district
-have that certification signed by 3 people at the City Clerk's office
-get 2000 signatures (amount varies by office)
-have all your signatures certified in both the town and by the state
-have been enrolled in your party for 6 months if running in a primary
-plus about 6-7 other things. None of these are in the Constitution, they are state ballot access requirements. One of which is that you *also* fulfill the Constitutional requirements. But it's both/and.
You can claim that it's unconstitutional, but if so, Massachusetts has still been getting away with it for decades.

The problem seems to be that you are simply too stupid to understand what you read.

John moved to the Eighth because it is much harder to get elected if you don't live in the district, not because it's required that you live in the district.

And it's been pointed out to you three times now that the clerk signatures in U.S. House races have to come from the town in which the candidate resides. Nowhere is it stated that that town has to be in the district, because such a rule violates the Constitution.

Please provide a link to the Massachusetts statute that violates the Constitution. We have provided quotes and links proving our case. You babble and crawfish and provide irrelevant quotes that apply to elections for the Massachusetts House.

We're you in special education as a child?

 

[Kosher Dill]

So is this thread pretty much over? If Warren doesn't have any more Wu stories to spill, and doesn't want to read "Election Eve", maybe it's time to call it a day.

 

[W person cow]

So in other words, I was right and you admit it's a stupid idea to run out of district.
By the way, another requirement is that it says your address on every nomination paper. So if you run from out of district, you basically have to explain that to every voter, along with explaining why you are the best candidate or whatnot. And you can bet it'll be a favorite debate topic too. If you're right and it is technically legal (yeah I guess that is in fact true), it's still something that only 5% of idiots would even try.
Y'all might be jerks but it's neat to see other citizens nerding out about details like this Well done.

So is this thread pretty much over? If Warren doesn't have any more Wu stories to spill, and doesn't want to read "Election Eve", maybe it's time to call it a day.

I do want to read election eve, and may have time to when I get home. But get your rest, and don't forget to hydrate

 

[KerryDixon9]

We're you in special education as a child?

I think weed is the culprit.

So is this thread pretty much over? If Warren doesn't have any more Wu stories to spill, and doesn't want to read "Election Eve", maybe it's time to call it a day.

Depends if Kiwi's can persuade him to go to the meeting to tempt Brianna to throw an iPad at him.

 

[Dimethyl Ketone]

Ok well I thought you were mostly pretty interesting to talk to. But go for it. And you are right about the exceptional cousins.
For example, over 70% of judges in this state went to one law school, Suffolk. Which gives extra admissions chances to people whose relatives went there. And since the law dropouts go into politics...

Come on dude. I provided screenshots and proof. It's supreme court law that not getting on the ballot is the same as excluding them form eligibility. It literally lists the ballot requirements and I reproduced them. If I'm wrong, SHOW ME!

You can't accept that you're wrong even presented with proof that you're mixed up on the difference between state and federal offices. In fact, only ONE position in your state requires that you live in the district. I'll leave it up to you to find out which one that is, but it's on page 15 that I listed, and it's a STATE position, not a federal position.

Come on man. You're frustrating me. Just grow already. You think you know everything and you're unable to learn anything new? You don't seem like that much of a narcissist to me but maybe Brianna rubbed one off on you. (Yes that's not a typo. That's pure isalmic content, gents.)

 

[AprilRains]

I'm beginning to think there's a reason Warren didn't see a problem with Brianna: She LARPs as a tech guru, he LARPs as a politics nerd. They're both intolerant of correction and seemingly unable to admit error or learn things.

 

[W person cow]

I'm beginning to think there's a reason Warren didn't see a problem with Brianna: She LARPs as a tech guru, he LARPs as a politics nerd. They're both intolerant of correction and seemingly unable to admit error or learn things.

Haha I'm working on that, but touche.

Come on dude. I provided screenshots and proof. It's supreme court law that not getting on the ballot is the same as excluding them form eligibility. It literally lists the ballot requirements and I reproduced them. If I'm wrong, SHOW ME!

You can't accept that you're wrong even presented with proof that you're mixed up on the difference between state and federal offices. In fact, only ONE position in your state requires that you live in the district. I'll leave it up to you to find out which one that is, but it's on page 15 that I listed, and it's a STATE position, not a federal position.

Come on man. You're frustrating me. Just grow already. You think you know everything and you're unable to learn anything new? You don't seem like that much of a narcissist to me but maybe Brianna rubbed one off on you. (Yes that's not a typo. That's pure isalmic content, gents.)

No I think you were probably right about that one point actually. Not about the larger point that running from out of district makes any sense whatsoever, but I think you got me. Federal candidates can indeed technically run from out of district in MA, I was wrong about that. Local ones can't and there are lots of barriers for the federal candidates too, but you're right about US Congress I guess. They have a ton of extra hurdles though, the largest one of which is, y'know, kinda hard to convince the voters you care about their local issues when you're not even nearby, and it says that at the top of all official info about you.

 

[Dimethyl Ketone]

No I think you were probably right about that one point actually. Not about the larger point that running from out of district makes any sense whatsoever, but I think you got me. Federal candidates can indeed technically run from out of district in MA, I was wrong about that. Local ones can't and there are lots of barriers for the federal candidates too, but you're right about US Congress I guess. They have a ton of extra hurdles though, the largest one of which is, y'know, kinda hard to convince the voters you care about their local issues when you're not even nearby, and it says that at the top of all official info about you.

Thanks and I agree with everything you said, except you weren't arguing with me about whether or not it was smart to run from the district in which you live. I also agree that it is, that's a pretty easy smear "What does X know about Y politics? They don't even live here!"

 

[Dr. Merkwurdichliebe]

Federal candidates can indeed technically run from out of district in MA, I was wrong about that.

Hallelujah!

 

[W person cow]

Haha, as we know, I'm not always the smartest and I have a temper problem. Sorry about that. Still not running against Lynch tho. I do have going for me that I grew up in the 8th, but I know way more about Malden. And running for US Congress without first trying to win City Council is very much not my style. I'll help somebody try though, if they pay me, heh.

By the way, "Bernie Bros" (mostly actually women) won 35 out of 40 races they were in tonight!!!! Not that y'all probly care about that stuff, but I'm pretty psyched! It's no wonder certain politicians (ahem ahem) want to pretend they believe in our platform!

 

[Peace and Harmony]

It's no wonder certain politicians (ahem ahem) want to pretend they believe in our platform!

lol are you talking about John? John spouts "progressive" platitudes because he's a mean-spirited asshole and totalitarian jagoff.