Ä [44]  IN*TOUCH LIBERTARIAN (1:375/48) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ALT.POLITICS.LIBERTARIAN Ä
 Msg  : #5167 [177]                                                             
 From : Vernon R Imrich                     1:2613/335      Fri 11 Feb 94 19:35 
 To   : All                                                                     
 Subj : Term Limits and Ballot Access                                           
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
From: vimrich@athena.mit.edu (Vernon R Imrich)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

We may be in a no lose situation with this WA case.  This is the
case where WA tried to impose term limits by preventing X term
incumbents from gaining ballot status.  Here is an AP excerpt
with my emphasis:

-------------
  SEATTLE (AP) -- A federal judge struck down parts of a state law
limiting the number of times U.S. senators and representatives can
get their names on the ballot for re-election.
  The ruling Thursday is the first by a federal judge to address
the movement among states to impose term limits.
  U.S. District Judge William Dwyer said the Washington state law
is unconstitutional and violates protections for freedom of
political association and expression.

  He said the U.S. Constitution bars states from imposing
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
qualifications on congressional candidates other than minimum age,
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
citizenship and state residency.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  The law ``hobbles a few runners to make sure they lose,'' Dwyer
wrote. ``A state may not constitutionally do that, just as it may
not bar qualified runners from the track.''
...
  Dwyer's decision likely will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court, where a decision would affect term-limit laws in 14 other
states.
-------------

Does anyone at the LP or related Legal Organizations have people on
this?  Seems to me we may be able to get a victory either way at
the Supreme Court level.  That is, they must either allow this kind
of term limitation, or they must strike down all ballot access
restrictions based on political party affiliation (among others)!

Someone should get a friend of the court brief in fast.  We want to
be on top of this when the S.C. rules on this.  Particularly, we
need to challenge ballot access laws that are not based on the
age, citizenship or state residency of the candidate.

Hello... any lawers out there?  This may be a GOLDEN opportunity!!!

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
|    Vernon Imrich      |*. .   ..   . . . **  .   .*   ' . . '. . . |
|  MIT OE, Rm 5-329b    | You've just crossed over into;  .  *  .  ..|
|  Cambridge, MA 02139  | .  .* .  THE  .   .. .    .  .*  .  .  *   |
|                       | . . .. .   T W I L I G H T   . .. . .  .*  |
|    617-253-3910       |: . *  ' ..  .* .  .  Z O N E .   .  .*   . |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------