Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Lieberman's Victory Dance May Be Short Lived

Remember the remarks about Lieberman? [Hi Ellroon]

[This information should not be relied upon; subject to revision.]

Note when we say, "Lieberman's Party" we're referring to the Party he created, but was never officially registered until Orman created it.

* * *

Lieberman appears to have a problem with that sham-party he created to outmaneuver the DNC. It's not a sham party, but real.

Stay tuned, we'll have to see whether the Senate does or does not accept what's happened. Either way, Lieberman's not as spunky as he used to be. [ More presents for Lieberman ]

* * *

Ref CT Election Laws: Title 9.

Legal Theory

The US Congress retroactively crated rules for detention of prisoners under the Military Commissions Bill, granting immunity for illegal abuse. If the Congress can make rules retroactively changing standards, why can't Orman's newly created party do the same, and retroactively invalidate Lieberman's nomination?


The evidence before us suggests that there were no members in the Party which supposedly elected and nominated Senator Lieberman as their Party's nominee. If it as appears, the petitioners were not members of Lieberman’s-created-party, then precedent should have called for the State officials to reject the petition. The aggrieved party appears to be Lamont, and based on a cursory view of the 1994 precedent, appears to suggest that the Petitioners were not in a position to lawfully compel any state official to accept their petition.

[Warning: This not an assertion that anyone has committed a crime; or that anyone has done anything illegal. This is merely a personal opinion.]


1. The Party which submitted petitioners had no members. Here's the official website of Lieberman’s Party.

2. The legal issue is significant. James Hupp in Maryland captures Lieberman's problem well:Orman said the party was created for one man, its members had not changed their party registration, and it lacked a platform and the required rules for nominating candidates.

3. For purposes of this discussion, Hupps valid concern about the party platform is not the issue, but whether the petitioners, regardless a platform, were or were not properly affiliated with Lieberman’s newly created party. It is our view, the issue of whether there was or was not a platform is secondary, and not relevant: The problem appears to be the fundamental lack of party affiliation for the petitioners.

___ Does a newly created party require petitioners in the same party as the first election the party selects a candidate; or does CT permit non-party affiliated personnel to petition for the first-time candidate, regardless their party affiliation?

___ Were the petitions by DNC members, and in violation of the State rules, requiring the Petitions to have been from the party, not from the DNC; and were the petitioners on the single page incorrectly accepted by the CT State Officials

4. "The legislature seemed intent on leaving disputes over endorsements to be resolved by the political parties. " [ HAMAD v. KEEZER ]

___ Has the political process, through the new party, been appropriately used to resolve the dispute over who is or is not the Party Candidate?

___ However, if there is an issue of fraud, then the courts do have a role: "Turning from questions of statutory language interpretation, it is true that courts will intervene in party affairs in cases of fraud or clear violation of law, see cases cited." [ HAMAD v. KEEZER ]

5. "Candidates so chosen shall run in the primary of such party as party endorsed candidates except as provided in Section 9-416." [ HAMAD v. KEEZER ]
Sec. 9-416. No-contest nominations; state or district office. If (1) at a state or district convention no person other than a party-endorsed candidate has received at least fifteen per cent of the votes of the delegates present and voting on any roll-call vote taken on the endorsement or proposed endorsement of a candidate for a state or district office, and (2) within the time specified in section 9-400, no candidacy for nomination by a political party to a state or district office has been filed by or on behalf of a person other than a party-endorsed candidate in conformity with the provisions of section 9-400, no primary shall be held by such party for such office and the party-endorsed candidate for such office shall be deemed to have been lawfully chosen as the nominee of such party for such office.Ref

___ Unanswered legal question: If the petitions were supporting a candidate, and had not signed a petition challenging the election, would this allow the petitioners to be from any party, not necessarily from Lieberman’s newly-created party?

6. The record suggests that the petitioners were not members of Lieberman’s newly created party, but of the DNC. This is an important factor in considering whether the petitions were appropriately accepted by the CT state officials. The precedent is instructive -- Ineligible party members cannot qualify as petitioners for that candidate; and the appropriate CT State action would have been to reject the petition. Here is the language related to challenge petitions:
[ See: BYRNES, ET AL. v. EILEEN S. HORAN NO. CV 96-0473361. One of the proposed delegates, Lorraine Rubinow, in fact was not a member of the Democratic Party, and thus was ineligible. Because of her ineligibility, the rejected submitted petitions did not set forth a full slate of eligible persons as required.

7. The timing of the filing is remarkable, suggesting the petitioners were not in Lieberman’s Newly Created Party. The Primary was on the 8th, and wouldn't know until the 8th whether he had won or lost the Primary; the next day, Lieberman would have to file by the 9th. This means that the petitioners would have had to have signed the petition before Lieberman withdrew; or immediately after he Withdrew, but they were still in the DNC (there are not party members). . . .Ref [ Conclusion: Lieberman wasn't Nominated by his party; and got signatures from non-Party Members.]


___ What happened to the petitioners? Ref

___ How can those who signed the petition, who were allegedly still Democrats, meet the State election requirements: Allegedly, none of them were members of Lieberman’s Newly Created Party, and the petitioners allegedly did not meet the required number to qualify. Ref

___ Did Lieberman withdraw correctly from the DNC? Ref Ref Discussion:
"No withdrawal, and no nomination to replace a candidate who has withdrawn, under this section shall be valid unless the candidate who has withdrawn has filed a letter of withdrawal signed by such candidate with the Secretary of the State in the case of a state or district office or the office of state senator or state representative from any district, or with the municipal clerk in the case of a municipal office other than state senator or state representative"

___ Did Lieberman violate the DNC party rules? Ref

___ Did Lieberman's conduct, in creating a sham committee, amount to a false statement? Ref

___ Was Lieberman's CT petition valid without a formal nomination process? Ref

___ PA has a rule that says a loser in a primary cannot form a new party; you can only form a new Party if you are not in the Primary. What about CT? Ref

___ Could the Senate refuse to recognize the Lieberman candidate, and accept Lamont? It's possible.

* * *

What You Can Do

1. Contact the CT election authorities. Ref The CT election commission.

2. Ask for a special prosecutor to investigate alleged American torture. Mention Lieberman's name as someone who may have discussed the Military Commissions Act with Rove and the President: What was the motivation to retroactive grant immunity; or provide funds if one of the defendants appears before The Hauge? Ref

* * *

Don’t Miss This: Here's the official website of Lieberman’s Party.

* * *

Other Interesting Information

Here's the rub:
Richard WagnerThe story does not mention that in 1995, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Nielsen v Kezer, 652 A 2d 1013, that a one-person nominating caucus is invalid, because there is no one present to second any nominations.

And the President of that Party isn't happy with Lieberman.

Kos has the rules, and here's a nice summary; thanks Hilzoy.