Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 


 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

The "Independent Democrat" Lie

by: BranfordBoy

Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 16:01:45 PM EDT


Despite the BS he was flinging at his press conference, Joe Lieberman will not appear on the ballot as an "independent Democrat." The law (excerpted below the fold) says so.
BranfordBoy :: The "Independent Democrat" Lie
Sec. 9-453u. (Formerly Sec. 9-378m). Reservation of party designation.

(a) An application to reserve a party designation with the Secretary of the State and to form a party designation committee may be made at any time after November 3, 1981, by filing in the office of the secretary a written statement signed by at least twenty-five electors who desire to be members of such committee.

(b) The statement shall include the offices for which candidates may petition for nomination under the party designation to be reserved but shall not include an office if no elector who has signed the application is entitled to vote at an election for such office.

(c) The statement shall include the party designation to be reserved which (1) shall consist of not more than three words and not more than twenty-five letters; (2) shall not incorporate the name of any major party; (3) shall not incorporate the name of any minor party which is entitled to nominate candidates for any office which will appear on the same ballot with any office included in the statement; (4) shall not be the same as any party designation for which a reservation with the secretary is currently in effect for any office included in the statement; and (5) shall not be the word "none", or incorporate the words "unaffiliated" or "unenrolled" or any similarly antonymous form of the words "affiliated" or "enrolled".

(d) The statement shall include the names of two persons who are authorized by the party designation committee to execute and file with the secretary statements of endorsement required by section 9-453o and certificates of nomination as required by section 9-460.

(e) The secretary shall examine the statement, and if it complies with the requirements of this section, the secretary shall reserve the party designation for the offices included in the statement and record such reservation in the office of the secretary. Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, the reservation shall continue in effect from the date it is recorded until the day following any regular election at which no candidate appears on the appropriate ballot for that office under that party designation.

Hat tip to Jon Kantrowitz.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

the third party non-independent individual Democratic candidate (4.00 / 1)
From his prepared statement:

Q. Won't he be running as an Independent?
A. No, he will not be on the ballot as an Independent.

Q. How will he appear on the ballot?
A. He has two options, to petition his way on as an individual, or as
a petitioning party. That decision will be made in the coming days.

He hasn't decided if he'll start a third party?  He'll run as an independent but not be an independent?  Is that like running as a Democrat, but not being a Democrat?  It really requires a Sean Smith to make sense of this.


I understand what Joe meant now... (0.00 / 0)
when he said he was running as an "INDIVIDUAL" Democrat

[ Parent ]
induhvidual (0.00 / 0)
as defined by scott adams.

Usage: "You're quite an In-duh-vidual, Andy."

Meaning: "Someday you will be cleaning the gunk behind my refrigerator, houseboy."


[ Parent ]
He gets here faster than (0.00 / 0)
us locals. Hey, Markos!

[ Parent ]
Jeez (0.00 / 0)
That's a lot of Lieberman on the front page of Kos.

Social libertarian.

[ Parent ]
Nancy DiNardo and the CT Dems (0.00 / 0)
It seems to me that Leiberman must have discussed all this with Nancy DiNardo prior to the press conference. If he didn't, it is proof to her how little regard or respect he has for her and the CT Dems.

Of course, it sounds like he didn't return George Jepson's calls...sending him directly to an endorsement of Ned Lamont (yay).

Sad to be treated so shabbily, but I used to date some real stinkers and at a certain point you have to kick 'em to the curb before they burn your house down.

You can still leave voice messages at (860) 560-1775 for Nancy c/o Justin Kronholm CT Dems Executive Director (in theory, his extension is the voice mail for Nancy DiNardo).

His Cellphone (given out on the office machine) is full but he can still get voice messages on the office phone.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."


Nancy's e-mail here: (0.00 / 0)
NDiNardo@ctdems.org

Great Discovery (0.00 / 0)
It sounds like Senator Lieberman was jumping the gun a little bit.  In many ways he's acting like a child-not thinking about his behavior before he acts or his statements before he speaks.  Should this type of a man be in the United States Senate?

Andrew Pass


OKAY YOU GUYS H ERE IS THE SCOOP (0.00 / 0)
Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks to your links and BBoy's statute, I called the Secretary of the Senate. They wanted to refer me to Lieberman's office to find out how he was designating himself. I said no way, this is a legal question, not a question of preference. I was then referred to the Rules Committee, and left a voicemail in the mailbox of the Chief Counsel, Matt Peterson (spelling?). I gave him my contact info and let him know the statute number, that in fact Joe was elected on CFL and we have both an Independent party and a Democratic party, neither of which can be used under our statutes, and asked him to clarify what bearing that has on how the senate designates him. Will keep ya posted.

and furthermore - contacted the Independent party (0.00 / 0)
Who may want to weigh in on this issue, as well.

[ Parent ]
Not a party issue - CT statute. (0.00 / 0)
The statute is not a Democratic party rule, and as such is not a decision within the Democratic party. It does involve the use of two parties' names, and both parties have an interest in how their names are used and with what platforms and views they become associated. There is an aspect of this that is like protecting your trademark, and not permitting your competitor to use and leverage your brand name. It may have to come from voters and not the party infrastructure that we stand up and demand clarity. So far, large factions within the party have chosen pragmatism over principle. It has merely painted us into a corner. I think it's time we grabbed the steering wheel from the Democratic pragmatists who want to ride along in the back seat with their designated driver Joe Lieberman careening toward the edge of the cliff. The statute is set forth in such a way as to clarify that the reason why neither 1) part of a major party name or 2) part of an already registered third party name may be used is to prevent voter confusion. It is important not to let this be case as a Democratic issue. Lieberman won by confusing people about his positions and about his party affiliation. What is required here is an umpire, someone to stand up for the rules of the game. It is an objective, neutral, impartial, nonpartisan decision that is needed here that will serve the interests of voter clarity. To in any way allow this issue to be painted as partisan, or related merely to Democratic anything, is a disservice to the voters of CT, because it allows specious, misleading thought processes to be publicly presented and to substitute for the intent of the law. That is precisely what Sharon Ferrucci did on the New Haven decision not to remove Lieberman from the party rolls "because Dems have a big tent." So what - it's not a Dem issue, it's a state statute issue.

[ Parent ]
 
0 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead



 
Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- Jon Kantrowitz
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT



Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin



Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox