Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anybody wonder why the state Court of Appeals races listed party affiliation for each of the candidates when judicial races are "supposed" to be non-partisan? This was the ONLY category of judicial races that were labeled by party on the ballot. Sort of stuck out like a sore thumb. Oh yeah , Phil Berger, Jr was on the ballot. Grrrrr.......
I wrote the State Bd of Elections asking why after I saw it on my sample ballot. I received two very polite responses from staff, both explaining that it was due to recent action by the legislature.
Anybody wonder why the state Court of Appeals races listed party affiliation for each of the candidates when judicial races are "supposed" to be non-partisan? This was the ONLY category of judicial races that were labeled by party on the ballot. Sort of stuck out like a sore thumb. Oh yeah , Phil Berger, Jr was on the ballot. Grrrrr.......
I wrote the State Bd of Elections asking why after I saw it on my sample ballot. I received two very polite responses from staff, both explaining that it was due to recent action by the legislature.
I thought that was odd, too. How did it affect the outcome? Favor R's or D's?
Morgan may have benefited from more funding. I swear I saw his ads and signs everywhere
I didn't see very many of his, which surprised me since the downticket races are the very ones where signs can actually make a difference (was anyone's mind really changed by a Trump or Clinton sign?).
I've already seen some Republicans whining that he only won because his name was listed first (as per rules THEY put in place, where a rotating-alphabetical system changed the order of judges from election to election) and that since they other candidates to that point who were listed first were all Republicans, then "people assumed he was R, too". Well, if your people are that stupid to make such an assumption, I don't know that I'd be admitting that...
But don't worry, they'll make another law for next time where Republican candidates' names are written in larger font and boldface, or something, and Democrats' are listed in invisible ink. It would be no less ridiculous than some of the other laws this legislature has passed.
Quote:
Supreme Court race did not list the candidates party affiliation. Obviously, it was widely known, but it was not listed on the ballot.
Previously, NO judges' parties were listed. It was only this year, because Berger's son was running, that apparently Berger made sure people knew that and rather randomly decided that THAT kind of judge was somehow different than other kinds of judges. He didn't have such a reason to go on and list them for the rest of the judges.
And you can't presume anything is "widely known" about election law. The number of ignorant voters (and degree of their ignorance) in every facet of society makes me want to bang my head on the wall.
I didn't see very many of his, which surprised me since the downticket races are the very ones where signs can actually make a difference (was anyone's mind really changed by a Trump or Clinton sign?).
I've already seen some Republicans whining that he only won because his name was listed first (as per rules THEY put in place, where a rotating-alphabetical system changed the order of judges from election to election) and that since they other candidates to that point who were listed first were all Republicans, then "people assumed he was R, too". Well, if your people are that stupid to make such an assumption, I don't know that I'd be admitting that...
But don't worry, they'll make another law for next time where Republican candidates' names are written in larger font and boldface, or something, and Democrats' are listed in invisible ink. It would be no less ridiculous than some of the other laws this legislature has passed.
Previously, NO judges' parties were listed. It was only this year, because Berger's son was running, that apparently Berger made sure people knew that and rather randomly decided that THAT kind of judge was somehow different than other kinds of judges. He didn't have such a reason to go on and list them for the rest of the judges.
And you can't presume anything is "widely known" about election law. The number of ignorant voters (and degree of their ignorance) in every facet of society makes me want to bang my head on the wall.
Previously, NO judges' parties were listed. It was only this year, because Berger's son was running, that apparently Berger made sure people knew that and rather randomly decided that THAT kind of judge was somehow different than other kinds of judges. He didn't have such a reason to go on and list them for the rest of the judges.
Yes, I am aware of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
And you can't presume anything is "widely known" about election law. The number of ignorant voters (and degree of their ignorance) in every facet of society makes me want to bang my head on the wall.
And I am also aware of that. My point was that I heard lots of chatter about Martin being a democrat and Edmunds being a republican, despite their party affiliation not being on the ballot. Maybe I paid more attention than most, who knows.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, Phil Berger, Jr was on the ballot. Grrrrr.......
