Decision of the court

It came down to this. Washington's primary law acts as an almost total bar to minor-party access to statewide general election ballots. Since the revision of Wash. Rev. in 1977, minor-party candidates have been, in the words of the Court of Appeals, "substantially eliminated from Washington's general election ballot. The Court of Appeals found that by 1984, only one minor-party candidate had been able to surmount the 1% barrier and earn the right to participate in the general election. Ibid. The legislation leading to this substantial elimination of minor parties from the political arena in Washington's general elections should not be sustained as a legitimate requirement of a demonstration of significant support.
Since Williams v. Rhodes, this Court has recognized that state legislation may not ensure the continuing supremacy of the two major parties by precluding minor-party access to the ballot as a practical matter. Yet here the Court sustains a statute that does just that. In doing so, the Court permits a State to pre-empt meaningful participation by minor parties in the political process by requiring them to demonstrate their support in a crowded primary election. The Court thus holds that minor parties may be excised from the electoral process before they have fulfilled their central role in our democratic political tradition: to channel dissent into that process in a constructive fashion. Respectfully, I dissent.

My own argument

I have an argument to pick on Justice White. He seems to be a bit unbalanced for a court Justice. Like my previous post on Reasoning. Another person wrote to Justice White and asked him if the 1962election had colored his attitudes. He actually wroteme a letter in response, but said he would just have to let his opinions speak for themselves. There has been some thought that White was hostile to minor party (bad news for the socialist workers) and independent candidates because he had beenclosely associated with President John F. Kennedy, and the entire Kennedy family had been upset when anindependent peace candidate (Professor H. SteuartHughes) qualified for the US Senate ballot in November 1962 in Massachusetts as an independent candidate,threatening the chances of Ted Kennedy, who was barely30 years old and who was famous in that campaign forhaving been caught cheating when he was a Harvardstudent (the public didn't know much else about him). I dont think this is the best time for the socialist workers to be in a court room. Espacially with Justice White.

Reasoning of the court

Justice Byron White wrote Munro v Socialist WorkersParty. He wrote all the ballot access decisions thatwere unfavorable to minor parties and independentcandidates between the years 1972 and 1993 (and thenhe left the Court). From a another bistanders view who have attended oral argument inStorer v Brown in 1973. White got very emotional atone point in the argument, when it appeared that theACLU attorney (Joseph Remcho) had identified a pointon which the state couldn't possibly win. Californialaw even said an independent candidate could not havevoted in the nonpartisan primary! White stammered andchoked and finally blurted out that this point wouldneed to be remanded to a state court (that didn'tactually happen, though).

Facts of the Case

Socialist workers party seek attorney's fees for challenging a Washington statute which was amended, mooting their action, before the case was heard. They confirm the district court's denial of their motion for fees.

I think the main issue in this case is whether the burden imposed on the minor parties' First Amendment rights are too severe to be justified by the State's interest in restricting access. The fact is that, prior to the 1977 amendments, virtually every minor-party candidate who sought a general election ballot position qualified, while after the amendments were passed, only one minor-party candidate has managed to make it onto the ballot.

Four Washington minor political parties1 (the minor parties) (Socialist workers party) challenged the constitutionality of a Washington statute2 which effectively prohibited members of minor political parties from voting in state primary elections.

Issue of the case

Going through the articles these past weeks, I have come to read that this case has
the conference has voted on this case being a tenative reversal. I think the opinion Justice White has circulated is basically acceptable, although I do have two concerns.

(quoted: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:EBLkDN2qh20J:electionlawblog.org/archives/munro-blackmun.pdf+munro+v.+socialist+workers+party&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)


There has been some "language" that Justice White has been showing throughout the case.
Some examples such as "on a showing of a modicum of voter support, or a significant modicum".
The the definition of "modicum" is "a small or moderate
amount or quantity, adding the word "significant" to that seems
slightly counter-intuitive.


( to be continued)

Fakes vs Legits

On the personal note, I myself have been tricked with bootleged items. I sometimes am a band shirt collector so I go around Ebay looking around for rare band shirts. Around September I bought a shirt from Ebay thinking it was legit. Later I found out it was a fake. Now, im not sure if its illegal or not. This isnt copies from large franchises so the sellers could probably get away from it. Then again, it was made from an underground foreign company. Most of the shirts that this seller was selling were fakes.

Other then just clothing bootlegs, my main concern is medicine bootlegs. Other then doing nothing to the economy, it concerns me a lot because these dangerous items end up in either over the counter or persciption shevles mainly in latin America. I have grandparents living in Mexico at the moment and the country is a victim of getting these harmful medicines.

(To be continued)