I’d say that it’s not a good path to tread to have courts deciding who can and can’t be on the ballot, however, in this particular case, it was put to the voters, and these guys knew the rule when they broke it, so c’est la vie
As for their argument, I’d say go with it… Let them run, let them get elected, then bar them for the term… That’s actually how the wording works out… Theyre correct that they can technically run, but it’s pretty specific about being unable to seve the term.
Fuck around and let a district go unrepresented for a term because legislators wanna play the “well ackshually” game, and the voters will sort that shit right out.
The other major news story about courts deciding who can and cannot be on the ballot is regarding the 14th amendment. @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca was likely referring to that, and to @aelwero@lemmy.world’s comment.
The problem with that is it denies all of the people in that district their right to representation. It’s not fair to punish people just because voters were dumb enough to elect someone who can’t actually serve. The reasonable thing to do is ban unqualified candidates from the ballot. Otherwise it’s like electing a dead person, they are going to have to hold a special election or appoint someone or do whatever the legal process is to fill the vacancy ASAP.
I’ve often wondered if this should be the punishment for failing to draw up constitutionally legal district maps. If a state can’t figure out how to not gerrymander the heck out of itself, deny them represention for a term while they sort it out.
Arguably the people elected under such maps don’t reflect the true will of the people anyways
I’d say that it’s not a good path to tread to have courts deciding who can and can’t be on the ballot, however, in this particular case, it was put to the voters, and these guys knew the rule when they broke it, so c’est la vie
As for their argument, I’d say go with it… Let them run, let them get elected, then bar them for the term… That’s actually how the wording works out… Theyre correct that they can technically run, but it’s pretty specific about being unable to seve the term.
Fuck around and let a district go unrepresented for a term because legislators wanna play the “well ackshually” game, and the voters will sort that shit right out.
Who but the courts rules on 14th amendment violations?
this isn’t 14th amendment, it’s oregon state law
The other major news story about courts deciding who can and cannot be on the ballot is regarding the 14th amendment. @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca was likely referring to that, and to @aelwero@lemmy.world’s comment.
fair enough, ty
The problem with that is it denies all of the people in that district their right to representation. It’s not fair to punish people just because voters were dumb enough to elect someone who can’t actually serve. The reasonable thing to do is ban unqualified candidates from the ballot. Otherwise it’s like electing a dead person, they are going to have to hold a special election or appoint someone or do whatever the legal process is to fill the vacancy ASAP.
But isn’t it the dumb voters being punished here? I kind of agree with OP
It’s everyone in the district being punished, not just those who voted, and not just those who voted “dumb”. That’s not justice.
I’d rather have no representation than one of these bad faith assholes “representing” me.
deleted by creator
I’ve often wondered if this should be the punishment for failing to draw up constitutionally legal district maps. If a state can’t figure out how to not gerrymander the heck out of itself, deny them represention for a term while they sort it out. Arguably the people elected under such maps don’t reflect the true will of the people anyways