Political parties are voluntary
associations for political purposes. They are governed by their own
usages, and establish their own rules. Members of such parties may
form them, reorganize them, and dissolve them at their will. The
voters constituting such party are, indeed, the only body who can
finally determine between contending factions or contending
organizations. The question is one essentially political, and not
judicial, in its character. It would be alike dangerous to the
freedom and liberty of the voters, and to the dignity and respect
which should be entertained for judicial tribunals, for the courts to
undertake in any case to investigate either the government, usages,
rules, or doctrines of a political party, or to determine between
conflicting claimants' rights growing out of its government. Davis v
Hambrick 58 S.W. 779, 780, 109 Ky. 276.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky in Davis
v. Hambrick, 109 Ky. 276, 58 S. W. 779:
Section 6 of Ky Constitution: All
elections must be fair and equal:
“The Kentucky Court of Appeals has
interpreted “fair and equal” to mean that election rules should
be uniform, impartial, and nondiscriminatory.”
Burns v Lackey, 1916;
The court ruled that the control of 30%
of a town's eligible voters through a secret organization by the
mayor and a candidate for commissioner amounted to an
unconstitutional intimidation and rendered the election invalid.
xxXxx
Davis v. Stahl, 1941; this section
doesn't apply to primary elections; (Ireland)
1941; Davis v Stahl;
Montgomery v. Chelf, 118 Ky. 766, 82
S.W. 388. 1904;
1954, Rosenberg; virtually identical to
Geoff Young's case;
1900 Davis v Hambrick
all of these are before 1975
overhaul of Judicial System; and the 1992 Amendment, which both
changed election? Laws.
xxx
Xx
The biggest blowout?
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2015/05/kentucky_2015_gubernatorial_pr.php
Kentucky Irish American: n. Saturday,
April 25, 1903.
https://www.elephind.com/?fes=1&a=q&r=1041&o=20&results=1&sf=byDA&puq=CASNSTILRL
Image 1 of Hopkinsville Kentuckian,
November 28, 1902
xxx
"Primary election May 9, 1903"
The Democratic State Executive
Committee is in session here today considering the method by which a
State ticket should be nominated next year, Gov. Beckham and his
following favoring primary election all over Kentucky, while the
friends of the other Gubernatorial candidates urge a continuance of
the old convention plan of making nominations. The fight between the
two factions promises to be long and bitter.
11/25/1902; “Leader”
xxx
In Eagan v.
Gerwe, 65 S.W. 437, this court said, “It seems reasonably clear
from these provisions that the legislative intent was to place
primary elections on the same plane as the regular elections.” When
a primary election has been called in the manner prescribed by the
statutes, the members of the committee who called and are required by
the law to conduct it became officer of the law, and are required to
respect and enforce the statutes enacted for the regulation of
primary elections. If they refuse to perform a duty imposed by
law—for instance, refuse to place the name of a candidate on the
ballot—a mandamus will lie to compel them to do so. Young v.
Beckham (Ky.) 72 S.W. 1092.
Eagan v. Gerwe.
65 S. W. 437, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1495
https://books.google.com/books?id=7TMLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1083&lpg=PA1083&dq=beckham+changes+convention+primary+ballot+kentucky&source=bl&ots=TyX0cZmebF&sig=quAH2gv_DRPaox-XwAKkKsmEYOg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZAFhVY3zOIzioASw64KIDQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=beckham%20changes%20convention%20primary%20ballot%20kentucky&f=false
1951 Democratic
Primary:
Yes, in my answer filed 4/1/15 and
several filings since then. My contention is that a US Supreme Court
case from 1944 should trump dicta from a Kentucky case decided in
frikkin 1900, about 3 years before primaries were even widespread in
the Commonwealth. My normal procedure when arguing cases is to cite
very little case law myself. When the eedyit opposing lawyers cite
case law in their motions to dismiss, I methodically research each
case they cite, figure out how it actually supports my position &
undermines theirs, and write it down in my answer. Conway's lawyer is
less competent than a few others I've encountered since the
mid-1980s, but I've never seen a motion to dismiss that was worth the
paper it was written on. Here's one case I researched myself and
cited:
"Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) held that the Democratic Party of Texas was a "voluntary association," "protected...from interference by the State except that: 'In the interest of fair methods and a fair expression by their members of their preferences in the selection of their nominees, the State may regulate such elections by proper laws.'" [Id. at 654-5] At issue was whether Negroes would be allowed to vote in Democratic primaries. A previous US Supreme Court decision, Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927), had overturned a Texas law that had declared, "in no event shall a Negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic primary election in the State of Texas." The Texas Democratic Party and its Democratic-controlled legislature had reacted by giving "the State Executive Committee of a party the power to prescribe the qualifications of its members for voting or other participation. This article remains in the statutes. The State Executive Committee of the Democratic party adopted a resolution that white Democrats and none other might participate in the primaries of that party." [Smith v. Allwright at 658] The existence of a
'statutory system for the selection of party nominees for inclusion on the general election ballot makes the party which is required to follow these legislative directions an agency of the State in so far as it determines the participants in a primary election. The party takes its character as a state agency from the duties imposed on it by state statutes; the duties do not become matters of private law because they are performed by a political party.' [Id. at 663]
In Kentucky, at least since 1891, it has been an impeachable offense for "any person who, to procure his nomination or election, has, in his canvass or election, been guilty of any unlawful use of money, or other thing of value, or has been guilty of fraud, intimidation, bribery, or any other corrupt practice, and he shall be held responsible for acts done by others with his authority, or ratified by him." [Constitution Sec. 151] The Smith v. Allwright decision clarified to all American citizens that a political party's actions are subject to review by the courts even though it is a voluntary association and even if it is following its own bylaws and the laws of the state, if its methods are not "fair methods" and if they prevent "a fair expression by their members of their preferences in the selection of their nominees." [Id. at 654-5] Yet the five Defendants, in their Motions and Memoranda to Dismiss, are claiming that no court in the land may interfere in "an internal party matter," in which category they include primary elections and the selection of KDP chairpersons, even if the KDP's bosses have (or may be shown to have) engaged in a conspiracy to rig certain primary elections in May, 2014 and May, 2015, defraud Kentucky's Democratic voters, practice corruption and cronyism, and intentionally violate key KDP bylaws for their own personal gain.
Plaintiff wonders if he will hear Counsel try to argue in Court that dicta from a 1904 case, Montgomery v. Chelf, 118 Ky. 766, 82 S.W. 388, which they interpret to mean that in primaries anything goes, should trump the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).
"Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) held that the Democratic Party of Texas was a "voluntary association," "protected...from interference by the State except that: 'In the interest of fair methods and a fair expression by their members of their preferences in the selection of their nominees, the State may regulate such elections by proper laws.'" [Id. at 654-5] At issue was whether Negroes would be allowed to vote in Democratic primaries. A previous US Supreme Court decision, Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927), had overturned a Texas law that had declared, "in no event shall a Negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic primary election in the State of Texas." The Texas Democratic Party and its Democratic-controlled legislature had reacted by giving "the State Executive Committee of a party the power to prescribe the qualifications of its members for voting or other participation. This article remains in the statutes. The State Executive Committee of the Democratic party adopted a resolution that white Democrats and none other might participate in the primaries of that party." [Smith v. Allwright at 658] The existence of a
'statutory system for the selection of party nominees for inclusion on the general election ballot makes the party which is required to follow these legislative directions an agency of the State in so far as it determines the participants in a primary election. The party takes its character as a state agency from the duties imposed on it by state statutes; the duties do not become matters of private law because they are performed by a political party.' [Id. at 663]
In Kentucky, at least since 1891, it has been an impeachable offense for "any person who, to procure his nomination or election, has, in his canvass or election, been guilty of any unlawful use of money, or other thing of value, or has been guilty of fraud, intimidation, bribery, or any other corrupt practice, and he shall be held responsible for acts done by others with his authority, or ratified by him." [Constitution Sec. 151] The Smith v. Allwright decision clarified to all American citizens that a political party's actions are subject to review by the courts even though it is a voluntary association and even if it is following its own bylaws and the laws of the state, if its methods are not "fair methods" and if they prevent "a fair expression by their members of their preferences in the selection of their nominees." [Id. at 654-5] Yet the five Defendants, in their Motions and Memoranda to Dismiss, are claiming that no court in the land may interfere in "an internal party matter," in which category they include primary elections and the selection of KDP chairpersons, even if the KDP's bosses have (or may be shown to have) engaged in a conspiracy to rig certain primary elections in May, 2014 and May, 2015, defraud Kentucky's Democratic voters, practice corruption and cronyism, and intentionally violate key KDP bylaws for their own personal gain.
Plaintiff wonders if he will hear Counsel try to argue in Court that dicta from a 1904 case, Montgomery v. Chelf, 118 Ky. 766, 82 S.W. 388, which they interpret to mean that in primaries anything goes, should trump the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).
xxx
With a successful legislative session
behind him, Beckham made a bold political move in June 1906: he
orchestrated an effort to set the Democratic gubernatorial and
senatorial primaries in November – a full year before the
gubernatorial election and two years before the senatorial election.
Beckham wanted the Senate seat, and moving the primary up two years
would allow him to secure his party's nomination while he was still
governor. It also allowed him to use his influence as governor to
sway the party's choice of his potential successor as governor. State
Auditor Samuel Wilbur Hager was Beckham's choice for governor and
easily won the early primary over challenger N.B. Hays. Former
governor James B. McCreary challenged Beckham for the senatorial
nomination, but Beckham won by more than 11,000 votes.
Xxx
In considering a motion to dismiss, the
allegations of the complaint are taken as true and construed in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party. Louisville v. Stock
Yards Bank and Trust, 843 S.W.2d 327 (Ky. 1992). It is appropriate to
dismiss an action if it appears that the plaintiff would be unable to
prevail under any set of circumstances at trial. Pari-Mutuel Clerk's
Union, Local 541 v. Kentucky Jockey Club, 551 S.W.2d 801 (Ky. 1977).
This is a political question that is
not appropriate to be determined by this Court. Intraparty political
disputes are not jusiciable. The judiciary will not interfere in
matters that are essentially political rather than judicial. This
issue is a matter of First Amendment protection of the political
process and has been addressed in Davis v. Hambrick, 58 S.W. 779 at
780 (Ky. 1900) as the following:
Political parties are voluntary
associations for political purposes. They are governed by their own
usages, and establish their own rules. Members of such parties may
form them, reorganize them, and dissolve them at their will. The
voters constituting such party are, indeed, the only body who can
finally determine between contending factions or contending
organizations. The question is one essentially political, and not
judicial, in its character.
Because Plaintiff only identifies
alleged violations of the KDP bylaws in the Complaint, the Court does
not find any statutory prohibition or other authority that provides
this Court with justification for judicial intervention.
Wherefore, the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss is Granted and the Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby Dismissed
with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to CR 12.02.
This order is final and appealable and
there is no just cause for delay.
Ordered May 1, 2015
Signed
Thomas D. Wingate
xxx
2 court cases by Beshear and Co:
Rosenberg v. Republican Party of
Louisville and Jefferson County, 270 S.W.2d 171 (Ky. 1954)
Montgomery v. Chelf, 118 Ky. 766, 82
S.W. 388, (1904)
xxXxx
Wingate's Ruling:
Davis v. Hambrick, 58 S.W. 779
at 780 (Ky. 1900)
This issue is a matter of First
Amendment protection of the political process and has been addressed
in Davis v. Hambrick, 58 S.W. 779 at 780 (Ky. 1900) as the following:
“Political parties are voluntary
associations for political purposes. They are governed by their own
usages, and establish their own rules. Members of such parties may
form them, reorganize them, and dissolve them at their will. The
voters constituting such party are, indeed, the only body who can
finally determine between contending factions or contending
organizations. The question is one essentially political, and not
judicial, in its character.”
xxXxx
Davis v. Hambrick (Ky 1900)
119.020 Repealed, 1974. Catchline at
repeal: Political parties must nominate candidates by primary --
Exceptions -- Vacancy in nomination. History: Repealed 1974 Ky. Acts
ch. 130, sec. 198, effective June 21, 1974. -- Amended 1964 Ky. Acts
ch. 142, sec. 7. -- Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 81, sec. 5. --
Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942,
from Ky. Stat. secs. 1550-1c, 1550-1e, 1550-1f, 1550-5.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=27722
xxx
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY
July 19, 1954
ROSENBERG
v.
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, ET AL.
Cammack
H. A. I. Rosenberg, a candidate seeking
the Republican Party's nomination for United States Representative in
the Third Congressional District, brought suit in the Jefferson
Circuit Court to restrain the local Republican Party organization
from endorsing and actively supporting John M. Robsion in the coming
August primary election.
He alleged in general terms that the
appellees were engaged in a common conspiracy to use the local
organization's money, influence, machinery and personnel to bring
about the nomination of Mr. Robsion in the primary election. He
stated that he, being a candidate for the same nomination, would
suffer great and irreparable injury unless the appellees were
restrained from so doing. The appellee's motion to dismiss the
complaint was sustained on the ground that the court did not have
jurisdiction to entertain the action. The appellant then attempted to
file an amended complaint, but the court sustained the appellee's
objection to that also.
The only question before us on this
appeal is whether the complaint stated a claim which a court of
equity will entertain.
The appellant relies upon section 6 of
the Kentucky Constitution, KRS 119.020, and the Constitution and
By-Laws of the Jefferson County Republican Executive Committee.
Section 6 of our Constitution provides
that, "All elections shall be free and equal.' That section has
been construed by this Court as applying only to general elections.
Davis v. Stahl, 287 Ky. 629, 154 S.W.2d 736; Montgomery v. Chelf, 118
Ky. 766, 82 S.W. 388. Clearly it has no application to this case.
KRS 119.020 provides in part:
"* * * every political party shall
nominate all of its candidates for elective offices to be voted for
at any regular election at a primary election held as provided in
this chapter, and the governing authority of any political party
shall have no power to nominate any candidate for any elective office
or to provide any method of nominating candidates for any elective
office other than by primary elections as provided in this chapter.'
This statute sets forth the method by
which a political party may nominate its candidates. Clearly the
statute does not prevent a party organization from taking part in a
primary election. Whether the Constitution and By-Laws of the
Jefferson County Republican Executive Committee prohibit such action
does not concern us. Courts do not interfere with internal party
matters. Smith v. Howard, 275 Ky. 165, 120 S.W.2d 1040; Davis v.
Hambrick, 109 Ky. 276, 58 S.W. 779, 51 L.R.A. 671.
The appellant has failed to allege an injury from which a court of
equity will protect him by injunction.
Judgment affirmed. 19540719
xxx
Rosenburg vs. GOP of Louisville, 1954.
Section 6 of our Constitution provides
that, "All elections shall be free and equal.' That section has
been construed by this Court as applying only to general elections.
Davis v. Stahl, 287 Ky. 629, 154 S.W.2d
736 (1941);
Montgomery v. Chelf, 118 Ky. 766, 82
S.W. 388.
xxx
KRS 118.105(1).
118.105 Nominations by political
parties -- Vacancy in candidacy -- Replacement candidates --
Exceptions -- Ineligibility of Senior Status Special Judge. (1)
Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section and
in KRS 118.115, every political party shall nominate all of its
candidates for elective offices to be voted for at any regular
election at a primary held as provided in this chapter, and the
governing authority of any political party shall have no power to
nominate any candidate for any elective office or to provide any
method of nominating candidates for any elective office other than by
a primary as provided in this chapter. (2) Any political
organization not constituting a political party as defined in KRS
118.015 may make its nominations as provided in KRS 118.325. (3) If a
vacancy occurs in the nomination of an unopposed candidate or in a
nomination made by the primary before the certification of candidates
for the regular election made under KRS 118.215, because of death,
disqualification to hold the office sought, or severe disabling
condition which arose after the nomination, the governing authority
of the party may provide for filling the vacancy, but only following
certification to the governing authority, by the Secretary of State,
that a vacancy exists for a reason specified in this subsection. When
such a nomination has been made, the certificate of nomination shall
be signed by the chair and secretary of the governing authority of
the party making it, and shall be filed in the same manner as
certificates of nomination at a primary. (4) If a vacancy occurs in
the nomination of an unopposed candidate or in a nomination made by
the primary before the certification of candidates for the regular
election, and if that party's nominee was the only political party
candidate for the office sought, the governing authority of each
party may nominate a candidate for the regular election, provided
that no person has sought that party's nomination by filing a
notification and declaration. (5) If a vacancy occurs in the
nomination of a candidate under the conditions of subsection (3) or
(4) of this section prior to September 15 preceding the day of the
regular election, certificates of nomination for replacement
candidates shall be filed in the same manner as provided in
subsections (3) and (4) not later than 4 p.m. ten (10) days after the
vacancy occurs, excluding weekends and legal holidays. If a vacancy
occurs in the nomination of a candidate under the conditions of
subsection (3) or (4) of this section on or after September 15
preceding the date of the regular election, certificates of
nomination for replacement candidates shall be filed in the same
manner as provided in subsections (3) and (4) not later than 4 p.m.
five (5) days after the vacancy occurs, excluding weekends and legal
holidays. (6) If a vacancy in candidacy described in subsection (5)
of this section occurs later than the second Thursday preceding the
date of the regular election, no certificates of nomination shall be
filed and any candidate whose name does not appear on the ballot may
seek election by write-in voting pursuant to KRS 117.265. (7) This
section does not apply to candidates for members of boards of
education, or presidential electors, nor to candidates participating
in nonpartisan elections. However, regardless of the number of days
served by a judge acting as a Senior Status Special Judge, a judge
who elected to retire as a Senior Status Special Judge in accordance
with KRS 21.580 shall not become a candidate for any elected office
during the five (5) year term prescribed in KRS 21.580(1)(a)1.
Effective:June 25, 2013 History:
Amended 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 66, sec. 1, effective June 25, 2013. --
Amended 2007 Ky. Acts ch. 46, sec. 1, effective June 26, 2007. --
Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 71, sec. 7, effective June 20, 2005. --
Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 2, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1998. --
Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 482, sec. 1, effective April 13, 1994. --
Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 49, sec. 1, effective March 12, 1990. --
Amended 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 17, sec. 8, effective July 15, 1988. --
Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 394, sec. 18, effective July 15, 1982. --
Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 384, sec. 25, effective June 17, 1978. --
Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 54, sec. 23, effective January 1, 1978. --
Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 100, effective June 21, 1974.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=42249
xxx
All five Defendants based their
Memoranda crucially upon Rosenberg v. Republican Party of Louisville
and Jefferson County, 270 S.W.2d 171 (Ky. 1954), which held that
Section 6 of the Kentucky Constitution – "All elections shall
be free and equal" – applies only to general elections, not
primaries [citing Montgomery v. Chelf, 118 Ky. 766, 82 S.W. 388,
(1904), which concluded, in a statement that Plaintiff considers
dicta, that primary elections aren't really elections at all]. The
Rosenberg decision also stated, "Whether the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Jefferson County Republican Executive Committee
prohibit such action does not concern us."
xxXxx
Look to the GOP:
Here's what the Democratic Party can do
better going forward:
(a) Seeing that the primary races for
Governor and certain other offices were contested, they would've
taken the idea of a "Unity Press Conference" off the table
or never considered it as a reasonable possibility in the first
place.
(b) The KDP would plan an extensive
series of campaign appearances where Plaintiff and Jack Conway
would have equal opportunities to present their ideas to the same
audience and debate with each other. The goal would be to help as
many of Kentucky's Democrats as possible form opinions about which
candidate would be more likely to be able to defeat the
Republican nominee and which would do a better job as the next
Governor.
(c) The KDP would assist both campaigns
in dealing with corporate media, both Kentucky-based and beyond.
No artificial limits would be imposed on the two candidates' freedom
of expression. If they wanted to spend 40% of their time attacking
each other and 40% of their time criticizing one or more of the
Republican candidates for Governor, that would be encouraged.
(d) The KDP would assist both
campaigns in complying with the myriad regulatory requirements that
must be met, so the decision between them would come down to the
choice of the voters on 5/19/15 rather than the violation of some
arcane regulation.
(e) Re fundraising, the KDP could
establish three separate Primary Funds within its treasury: one
that would be turned over to the Young-Masters Campaign as soon as
contributions came in, one that would be given to the Conway-Overly
Campaign, and one that would be given to the winner of the primary on
5/19/15. People could still contribute directly to the two campaigns
if they preferred to bypass the KDP, of course. In addition, the
State Executive Committee could decide to give equal amounts of
KDP funds and other resources to both primary campaigns, pursuant to
Article I.D. (..."No assets of the Democratic Party shall be
used in a Democratic Primary Election unless they are made available
equally to all Democrat Candidates in that specific primary
election...")
(f) Although neither the KDP nor any
county Democratic parties currently hold annual conventions (to
Plaintiff's knowledge), they could. Each convention could provide
equal opportunities for both candidates to interact with grass-roots
Democrats.
(g) Throughout the primary, the
overwhelming message conveyed by the KDP and all the county parties
would be, "May the best candidate win on May 19th and then win
again on November 3rd."
Or, the KDP could choose to continue to
decline.
xxx
xxx
Young v. Hughes
My half assed concession;
I'm the Internet's Johnathan Masters,
Johnny Tsunami; Mastah Pastah; Polly Wolly;
First, I'd like to thank the media...
list all of them.
I'm not bitter... laugh... you sons of
bitch will pay!
Now, I'd like to thank the 87.4% who
did not vote. You have wisely protested this failed state, and their
illusion of democracy. You wisely kept your vote out of the ballot
box because you felt that all of the candidates who illegitimate, and
not worthy of leading. You not voting wasn't out of apathy, or
complacency... it wasn't because you were to fuck'n lazy to google
the names of the candidates, and to do the very least of your civic
duties... no. It was because a true blue Mingo Plucky Kentuckian
understand civics and democracy, and you all were sick and tired of
the bullshit, and on election day, instead of going to do your duty,
you said fuck it. You plopped down on the lazy boy chair, with your
freshly cooked Burgoo, and zoned out to some Honey BooBoo reruns.
xxx
May 23, 2015. Ireland is the first
country in the world to legalize gay marriage by popular vote.
May 24. The beginning of the Scientific
Revolution Era (1543-1687). The publication in 1543 of Nicolaus
Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium begins the
Scientific Revolution Era.
May 24-31 (Last Monday of May).
Memorial Day (Federal Holiday). This day is to remember Civil War
veterans.
May 25, 1961. On this date, President
John F. Kennedy gave a stirring speech before a joint session of
Congress, in which he declared his intention to focus U.S. efforts on
landing humans on the moon within a decade. His words ignited the
work of a decade, in achieving the dream of a moon landing.
xxx
My name will stay on the ballot until
Young and Conway figure out what they are going to do in the courts.
In the meantime, I'm going to try to find myself a job. A good job.
I'm not above any job, and if I have to take a shit job, I don't want
to work for an asshole boss. That's the only caveat I have to a shit
job. I don't mind the work, but the disrespect from some arrogent
loser asshole, is too much to bear.
Conway's 140,627 votes represents 4% of
Kentucky's total voters.
Young's 37,887votes represents 1% of
Kentucky's total electorate.
That's a 3% difference. 3% separated us
…
Dewey v Truman in 1948 represented a
4.4% point margin spread. 1948... that was when Strom Thurmond got
2.4% of the vote. Strom Thurmond once said, the dick knows no
bigotry.
And of course, that's out of 3.2
million possible Kentucky voters, of which, 2.8 million, didn't even
give a fuck to go vote.
87.4% of Kentuckians didn't vote.
That's the number that needs to be focused on. If you're focused on a
margin of 3% between an overly established candidate's 4% of
Kentucky's electorate versus Geoff Young's 1% electorate, and calling
it a blowout, you don't know shit about politics. Also, you're
focused on the wrong number.
87.4% of Kentuckians didn't vote. That,
and piss poor education, is why Kentucky has every problem that's
ever been thought up by mankind here. You name a problem, we got it.
Why? Because 87.4% of Kentucky votes.
xxXxx
these elections in context:
1
'87 Dem Race = '15 GOP Race; Wallace
Wilkinson came “up the middle”, after Beshear and John Y Brown
Jr. were trading barbed attacks.
2
'51 Dem primary = bigger blowout than
Young/Masters campaign.
Plus 1903... Beckham v mysterious
Democratic challenger in the very first Democratic primary, on May 9,
1903.
3
current election, with 4 race horses
left, is reminscent of the 1899 Ky election, between Democrat Goebel,
Republican Taylor, “Honest Election Democrats” John Young Brown,
and Populist John G. Blair. Terrill Newman; GG; and in spirit,
write-in Gatewood; that's always a possibility; if there's a large
number of folks who do it, while it won't mean anything, the
Secretary of State will have to announce it.
xxx
Section 4 of Kentucky's Constitution:
All power is inherent
in the people, and all free governments are founded on their
authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the
protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have
at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform
or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.
For peace, safety, happiness, and the
protection of property, we're allowed to burn this mother fucker
down, if we don't get them.
Peace
Safety
Happiness
Protection of Property
Kentucky, Texas, Pennsylvania, New
Hampshire, and Tennessee all have a “right to Revolution” clause
in their Bill of Rights.
Belief in this right has been used
throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the
English Civil War, the American Revolution, and the French
Revolution.
xxx
Section 6 of
Ky Constitution: All elections shall be free and equal. Text as
Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.History:
Not yet amended.
Section 150:
Every person shall be disqualified from holding any office of trust
or profit for the term for which he shall have been elected who shall
be convicted of having given, or consented to the giving, offer or
promise of any money or other thing of value, to procure his
election, or to influence the vote of any voter at such election; and
if any corporation shall, directly or indirectly, offer, promise or
give, or shall authorize, directly or indirectly, any person to
offer, promise or give any money or any thing of value to influence
the result of any election in this State, or the vote of any voter
authorized to vote therein, or who shall afterward reimburse or
compensate, in any manner whatever, any person who shall have
offered, promised or given any money or other thing of value to
influence the result of any election or the vote of any such voter,
such corporation, if organized under the laws of this Commonwealth,
shall, on conviction thereof, forfeit its charter and all rights,
privileges and immunities thereunder; and if chartered by another
State and doing business in this State, whether by license, or upon
mere sufferance, such corporation, upon conviction of either of the
offenses aforesaid, shall forfeit all right to carry on any business
in this State; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to
provide for the enforcement of the provisions of this section. All
persons shall be excluded from office who have been, or shall
hereafter be, convicted of a felony, or of such high misdemeanor as
may be prescribed by law, but such disability may be removed by
pardon of the Governor. The privilege of free suffrage shall be
supported by laws regulating elections, and prohibiting, under
adequate penalties, all undue influence thereon, from power, bribery,
tumult or other improper practices. Text as Ratified on: August 3,
1891, and revised September 28, 1891. History: Not yet amended.
http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/legresou/constitu/150.htm
xxx
For each polling station, the law says
that 1 member of the two main political parties need to be present...
it's mandated by law that a Dem and GOP be manning the polling
stations. That suggests your Supreme Court case is right. While
political parties can try to influence an election, they must have
uniform policies, nominations, procedures, etc
xxx
Definitions of political:
Merriam-Webster:
1 :
a : of or relating to government, a
government, or the conduct of government
b : of, relating to, or concerned with
the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental
policy
2 : of, relating to, involving, or
involved in politics and especially party politics
3 : organized in governmental terms
<political units>
4 : involving or charged or concerned
with acts against a government or a political system <political
prisoners>
American Heritage Dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/political
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the
structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state: “a
political system”.
2. Relating to, involving, or
characteristic of political parties or politicians: “a political
campaign”.
3. Interested or active in politics:
“I'm not a very political person.”
4. Influenced by, based on, or stemming
from partisan interests or political ideology: The court should never
become a political institution. “The attack was a political crime.”
5. Based on or motivated by
self-serving interests, especially in attempting to gain power or to
please people of a higher rank in anorganization: political
maneuvering within the company.
6. Indicating national or regional
boundaries. Used of maps.
Wikipedia:
Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός
politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens")
is the practice and theory of influencing other people. More
narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of
governance — organized control over a human community, particularly
a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the
distribution of power and resources within a given community (a
usually hierarchically organized population) as well as the
interrelationship(s) between communities.
A variety of methods are employed in
politics, which include promoting or forcing one's own political
views among people, negotiationwith other political subjects, making
laws, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries.
Politics is exercised on a wide range of social levels, from clans
and tribes of traditional societies, through modern local
governments, companies and institutions up to sovereign states, to
the international level.
It is very often said that politics is
about power. A political system is a framework which defines
acceptable political methods within a given society. History of
political thought can be traced back to early antiquity, with seminal
works such as Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and the works of
Confucius.
Formal Politics refers to the operation
of a constitutional system of government and publicly defined
institutions and procedures. Political parties,public policy or
discussions about war and foreign affairs would fall under the
category of Formal Politics. Many people view formal politics as
something outside of themselves, but that can still affect their
daily lives.
Informal Politics is understood as
forming alliances, exercising power and protecting and advancing
particular ideas or goals. Generally, anything affecting ones daily
life. The way an office or household are managed, or how one person
or a group exercise influence over another. Informal Politics is
typically understood as everyday politics, hence the idea that
"politics is everywhere".
Dictionary.com; adjective
1.
of, relating to, or concerned with
politics :
political writers.
2.
of, relating to, or connected with a
political party:
a political campaign.
3.
exercising or seeking power in the
governmental or public affairs of astate, municipality, etc.:
a political machine; a political boss.
4.
of, relating to, or involving the state
or its government:
a political offense.
5.
having a definite policy or system of
government:
a political community.
6.
of or relating to citizens:
political rights.
Dictionary.com on Politics:
noun, ( used with a singular or plural
verb)
1.
the science or art of political
government.
2.
the practice or profession of
conducting political affairs.
3.
political affairs:
The advocated reforms have become
embroiled in politics.
4.
political methods or maneuvers:
We could not approve of his politics in
winning passage of the bill.
5.
political principles or opinions:
We avoided discussion of religion and
politics. His politics are his ownaffair.
6.
use of intrigue or strategy in
obtaining any position of power or control,as in business,
university, etc.
7.
(initial capital letter, italics) a
treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle,dealing with the structure,
organization, and administration of thestate, especially the
city-state as known in ancient Greece.
Idioms
8.
play politics,
to engage in political intrigue, take
advantage of a political situationor issue, resort to partisan
politics, etc.; exploit a political system orpolitical relationships.
to deal with people in an
opportunistic, manipulative, or deviousway, as for job advancement.
Machiavelli, known as the father of
politics, defined politics as the art of acquiring power, morality be
damned (paraphrased). Power... wealth is power too... politics is the
organization of people, it's power politics... where you get a job,
where you were born, what station of life, etc. All are political
decisions. Any decisions involving power... now, generally, “power”
is construed to be government, and all of the hubalub that comes from
government politics, but it's all politics. Those who say, “Don't
talk politics”... that's censorship. That's political. Those who do
not vote... that's political. That's a protest of our democratic
republican system.
Definition of Judicial:
of, by, or appropriate to a court or
judge.
xxx
xxx
This matter is before the Court upon
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to CR
12.02(1). Upon review of the parties' briefs and papers, and after
being sufficiently advised, this Court hereby GRANTS Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff, Geoffrey M. Young (“Young”),
pre se, brought the instant action against Defendants Steve Beshear,
Jack Conway, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Dan Logsdon, and Patrick Hughes
for “conspiracy to defraud Kentucky's Democratic voters,
corruption, cronyism, and intentional violation of KDP bylaws,”
Complaint paragraph 4. Young is a member of the Kentucky Democratic
Party (“KDP”) and is a candidate for Governor. Young's Complaint
alleges violations of KDP bylaws. Defendants argue that disputes
relating to the governance of political parties are not justiciable.
Defendants also contend that KDP bylaws do not create a judiciable
issue.
xxx
B. Better, more exciting, and much more
democratic procedures can readily be imagined.
Five responsible Democrats in the
Defendants' positions would have proceeded in a totally different way
between January 27, 2015 and the primary on 5/19/15.
(a) Seeing that the primary races for
Governor and certain other offices were contested, they would've
taken the idea of a "Unity Press Conference" off the table
or never considered it as a reasonable possibility in the first
place.
(b) The KDP would plan an extensive
series of campaign appearances where Plaintiff and Jack Conway would
have equal opportunities to present their ideas to the same audience
and debate with each other. The goal would be to help as many of
Kentucky's Democrats as possible form opinions about which candidate
would be more likely to be able to defeat the Republican nominee and
which would do a better job as the next Governor.
(c) The KDP would assist both campaigns
in dealing with corporate media, both Kentucky-based and beyond. No
artificial limits would be imposed on the two candidates' freedom of
expression. If they wanted to spend 40% of their time attacking each
other and 40% of their time criticizing one or more of the Republican
candidates for Governor, that would be encouraged.
(d) The KDP would assist both campaigns
in complying with the myriad regulatory requirements that must be
met, so the decision between them would come down to the choice of
the voters on 5/19/15 rather than the violation of some arcane
regulation.
(e) Re fundraising, the KDP could
establish three separate Primary Funds within its treasury: one that
would be turned over to the Young-Masters Campaign as soon as
contributions came in, one that would be given to the Conway-Overly
Campaign, and one that would be given to the winner of the primary on
5/19/15. People could still contribute directly to the two campaigns
if they preferred to bypass the KDP, of course. In addition, the
State Executive Committee could decide to give equal amounts of KDP
funds and other resources to both primary campaigns, pursuant to
Article I.D. (..."No assets of the Democratic Party shall be
used in a Democratic Primary Election unless they are made available
equally to all Democrat Candidates in that specific primary
election...")
(f) Although neither the KDP nor any
county Democratic parties currently hold annual conventions (to
Plaintiff's knowledge), they could. Each convention could provide
equal opportunities for both candidates to interact with grass-roots
Democrats.
(g) Throughout the primary, the
overwhelming message conveyed by the KDP and all the county parties
would be, "May the best candidate win on May 19th and then win
again on November 3rd."
Or, the KDP could choose to continue to
decline.
Thanks!
I probably never showed you the 3-page
bylaws I drafted in January of 2014 to replace the 38-page KDP
Bylaws. Any version I'd draft today wouldn't be the same because of
what I've learned over the last 18 months, but my goal was to make
the KDP more democratic. I handed a copy to Dan Logsdon on 1/9/14 if
I remember right. Never heard a word from him about it. He's probably
the stupidest Democrat I've ever met, or maybe Fayette County's Bob
Layton. Both of them are in the bottom 5 I've ever met.
Requiring the KDP to hold an annual
statewide convention was a big part of it. It would be held before
the May primary so 2 or more Dem candidates for the same office could
make speeches to the most active KDP members. The chair of the
Executive Ctee would be an executive director, hired from the ranks
of all Democrats in the state and not an elected member of the EC.
I.e., a paid staff position. Ideas like that.
Geoffrey M Young I was on the Bylaws
Ctee that drafted early versions of Good Foods Co-op's bylaws &
articles of incorporation, and I was the main drafter of the bylaws
of the Ky Chapter of the Green Party of the US, so I've done this
kind of thing before and thought about bylaws for many, many hours
during the last 33 years I've lived in Ky.
xxXxx
xxx
8. On Saturday, February 7, 2015, the
Associated Press, WPSD Local Channel 6 and other news outlets
reported the following information:
The executive board of Kentucky
Democratic Party has unanimously elected attorney Patrick Hughes as
the party's new chairman. Hughes, of Edgewood, served as Chief Deputy
Attorney General to Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in 2011 and
2012. He currently is a partner at Dressman, Benzinger and LaValle.
In a news release on the election, Gov. Steve Beshear called Hughes
"a passionate, dedicated and thoughtful leader who understands
what's important to Kentucky families." Hughes succeeds Dan
Logsdon, who served as party chair for four and a half years.
9. On Monday, February 9, 2015, the
Defendants held a "Unity Press Conference" at the KDP
Headquarters building in Frankfort, where Defendants Beshear, Conway
and Grimes expressed their unity with and support for each other and
the other Democrats attending the event. Before the speeches began,
Plaintiff asked Defendant Hughes for permission to speak and was
denied. Plaintiff went outside to his car, hand-lettered a sign, and
stood outside the building showing it to everyone leaving the press
conference as they walked back to their cars. The sign read, "With
Grimes and Conway, Democrats LOSE." The sign clearly expressed
the absence of complete unity within the KDP.
10. Starting the next day, Plaintiff
repeatedly tried to contact Defendants Steve Beshear and Patrick
Hughes, demanding a hearing by the KDP's Executive Committee as
required by the KDP Bylaws when a Democrat accuses other Democrats of
intentionally violating important bylaws. Plaintiff timely faxed,
emailed and mailed an official accusation to Defendant Hughes on
2/10/15, which will be introduced as physical evidence at trial. As
of 3/2/15, the filing date of this lawsuit, neither Steve Beshear nor
Patrick Hughes has responded to Plaintiff in any way at all.
A. All five Defendants conspired to
intentionally violate KDP Bylaw I.D.
That bylaw reads as follows:
No Discrimination in Party Meetings:
No Democrat [sic] Committee governed by
these By-Laws, or any Democratic Party Officer acting in his or her
official capacity, shall endorse or support one Democratic candidate
over another Democratic candidate in a Democratic Primary Election.
No assets of the Democratic Party shall be used in a Democratic
Primary Election unless they are made available equally to all
Democrat [sic] Candidates in that specific primary election.
11. All five Defendants were acting in
their KDP capacities – proudly wearing their KDP hats – during
the week before and on the day of the "Unity Press Conference."
12. As far as Plaintiff knows,
Defendant Dan Logsdon was the Chair of the State Central Committee
until 2/7/15, when his successor, Patrick Hughes, was unanimously
elected by the EC.
14. The bogus "Unity Press
Conference" illustrated all five Defendants' clear intention to
violate not only the letter but also the spirit of KDP Bylaw I.D. The
intent of the bylaw is to enable and encourage as many of Kentucky's
registered Democrats as possible to participate in choosing the
nominee they prefer to represent them in the general election
campaign and in elected office if their preferred candidate wins. The
clear intent of the press conference was not only to endorse Conway
and Grimes but to convince the media and public that Plaintiff's
candidacy should be dismissed out of hand and completely ignored for
the next three months.
E. Defendants Logsdon, Conway, Beshear,
and Hughes conspired to intentionally violate KDP Bylaw I.G.
Publication of Qualifications for Party
Office:
The Kentucky Democratic Party shall
publicize fully and in such manner as to assure notice to all
interested parties a complete description of the legal and practical
qualifications for all officers and representatives of the State
Democratic Party. Such publication shall be done in a timely fashion
so that all prospective candidates or applicants for any elected or
appointed position within the State will have full and adequate
opportunity to compete for office.
24. Defendants violated every sentence
and clause of this bylaw in the process of installing Patrick Hughes
on 2/7/15. Plaintiff was eager to apply for the Chair position, but
didn't even learn it had been up for grabs until a day after the EC
did the Governor's bidding. There was probably no instant in time
when the Chair position was vacant. There was probably an
instantaneous transition between one corrupt Chairperson, Defendant
Logsdon, and his corrupt successor, Defendant Hughes.
xxXxx
Section 6 of Ky Constitution:
xXx
xxx
County Election Committee... one from
“each” party. ?
xxx
Section 6:
Elections to be free and equal. All
elections shall be free and equal.
This section was in all 4 of Ky's
Constitutions. Originally borrowed from the Pennsylvania Constitution
of 1790...
and originally came from English
Declaration of Rights of 1689.
xxx
xxx
Section 151 of
Ky Constitution: The General Assembly shall provide suitable means
for depriving of office any person who, to procure his nomination or
election, has, in his canvass or election, been guilty of any
unlawful use of money, or other thing of value, or has been guilty of
fraud, intimidation, bribery, or any other corrupt practice, and he
shall be held responsible for acts done by others with his authority,
or ratified by him. Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised
September 28, 1891. History: Not yet amended.
Xxx
xxx
118.176 Challenging good faith of
candidate. (1) A "bona fide" candidate means one who is
seeking nomination in a primary or election in a special or regular
election according to law. (2) The bona fides of any candidate
seeking nomination or election in a primary or in a special or
regular election may be questioned by any qualified voter entitled to
vote for the candidate or by an opposing candidate by summary
proceedings consisting of a motion before the Circuit Court of the
judicial circuit in which the candidate whose bona fides is
questioned resides. An action regarding the bona fides of any
candidate seeking nomination or election in a primary or in a special
or regular election may be commenced at any time prior to the regular
election. The motion shall be tried summarily and without delay.
Proof may be heard orally, and upon motion of either party shall be
officially reported. If the Circuit Judge of the circuit in which the
proceeding is filed is disqualified or absent from the county or is
herself or himself a candidate, the proceeding may be presented to,
heard and determined by the Circuit Judge of any adjoining judicial
circuit. (3) In any action or proceeding under this section the
burden of proof as to the bona fides of a candidate shall be on the
person challenging the bona fides of a candidate. (4) If the court
finds the candidate is not a bona fide candidate it shall so order,
and certify the fact to the board of elections, and the candidate's
name shall be stricken from the written designation of election
officers filed with the board of elections or the court may refuse
recognition or relief in a mandatory or injunctive way. The order of
the Circuit Court shall be entered on the order book of the court and
shall be subject to a motion to set aside in the Court of Appeals.
The motion shall be heard by the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof
in the manner provided for dissolving or granting injunctions, except
that the motion shall be made before the court or judge within five
(5) days after the entry of the order in the Circuit Court, and may
be heard and tried upon the original papers, and the order of the
Court of Appeals or judge thereof shall be final. (5) No person shall
approach the Circuit Judge for the purpose or view of influencing his
or her decision on the motion pending before the Circuit Judge or to
be tried by him or her. Effective:July 15, 2010 History: Amended 2010
Ky. Acts ch. 123, sec. 1, effective July 15, 2010. -- Amended 2001
Ky. Acts ch. 52, sec. 1, effective June 21, 2001. -- Amended 1984 Ky.
Acts ch. 413, sec. 2, effective April 11, 1984. -- Amended 1976 (1st
Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 131, effective January 2, 1978.
-- Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 62, sec. 86, effective June 19 1976; and
ch. 247, sec. 7, effective June 19 1976. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch.
130, sec. 107, effective June 21, 1974.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=27592
xxx
Conway v Young: The Biggest Blowout in
Kentucky History?
I caught some random asshole's tweet
that read something like:
“For Republicans, it was
the closest election; for the Democrats, the biggest blowout. lol”
Well... again, that's another mf'er
that doesn't know shit about Kentucky history.
They don't even fuck'n know any of the
names of Kentucky's 62 Governors we've had so far. And if you ate
that sentence up, without question, well then... guess what?
We've only had 61 Governors, you stupid
ignorant mother fuckers. 2016 will bring about the 62nd
Governor... actually, I heard Ol' Will T. say they're inaugurated
early in December. 5 weeks after the November 3 Election?
Anyways. No I don't believe the person
who tweeted that our race was the biggest blowout in Kentucky history
knew what in sam hell they were talking about.
Besides. The Democratic Party's
leadership picked Jack Conway a year ago. 12.6% … the voters were
irrelevant.
xxXxx
For an easy comparison, let's look at
Gatewood Galbraith's 3 Democratic primaries—2007, 1995, and 1991.
In 1991, Gatewood was in a 4-way
primary race against Floyd G. Poore, Scott Baesler, and Brereton C.
Jones (Jones, who eventually won the Governor's chair, tried to
introduce Universal Healthcare in Kentucky in 1993).
Gatewood received 25,834 votes.
Young/Masters 2015 received 37,887 votes, which made up 21.22%.
Gatewood's 25,834 votes made up 5.25%. So percentage-wise and in
terms of total number of votes, Young/Masters 2015 primary campaign
wasn't as big of a blowout as Gatewood's 1991 campaign.
In 1995, Gatewood ran against 4 other
Democrats in a 5 way race. Gatewood ran against Paul E. Patton, Bob
Babbage, John A. Rose, Jr., and Steven Maynard.
Gatewood won more votes this time,
garnering 29,039 votes, and a higher percentage, 8.58%... but both of
those numbers are lower than Young/Masters 2015's numbers. We
received about 10,000 more votes, and our 21.22% blows Gatewood's
1995's electoral numbers out of the water.
In 2007, Gatewood ran against 5 other
Democratic contenders in the primary. Steve Beshear, Bruce Lunsford,
Steve Henry, Jody Richards, and Otis Hensley were his opposition.
Gatewood received less total votes than he received in 1991 and 1995
with 20,704, and his percentage points were 5.95%.
So in all 3 of Gatewood's Democratic
primaries, Young/Masters 2015 did better than his slate.
xxXxx
With my point already proven, but
wanting to hammer it all the way home, I continue.
In the 1995 Democratic primary, Steven
Maynard lost to Gatewood, getting only 4,305 votes. That's a worse
blowout than us. John A. Rose Jr., while getting more total votes,
71,740, since there was a bigger turnout rate in 1995 Kentucky, that
only represented 21.18% of the vote. We got 21.22%. So Young/Masters
2015 beat John A. Rose percentage wise, and Gatewood and Steven
Maynard outright, percentage-wise, and in total number of votes.
We see similar comparisons with the
2007 Democratic primary race too. Young/Masters 2015 beat Otis
Hensley (3,792 votes; 1.09%) and Gatewood (the original) (20,704;
5.95%) outright, percentage-wise and in total number of votes.
Percentage-wise, Young/Masters fared better in 2015 (21.22%) than
Jody Richards (13.05%) and Steve Henry (17.49%) did in 2007.
Otis Hensley had more votes in 2003
than he received in 2007, when he got 9.372 votes, which was 3.29%.
Otis Hensley in 2003 was a bigger blowout than Young/Masters 2015.
1987 – Our 21.22% beat Steve
Beshear's 18.1%, Grady Stumbo's 13.4%, Julian Carroll's 6.6%, and 3
others, who collectively got 8,187 votes (1.3%). So we beat all of
them percentage-wise, and in total number of votes, the 3 others, we
smashed all of them to pieces. Even with their powers combined, they
couldn't come near our 37,887.
1983 – We beat 3 others in 1983 too,
who collectively got 15,807 votes (2.4%).
1979 – In total votes, Young/Masters
2015 beat “4 others” who collectively got 14,175 votes (2.5%). We
smashed them... and in that race, John Y. Brown Jr. nuked the shit
out of those “4 others”... Percentage-wise, but not in total
number of votes, we also beat Thelma Stovall (8.4%) and Carroll
Hubbard Jr. (12.1%).
Young/Masters 2015 experienced the
biggest blowout in Kentucky history? Shit... boi.
1975 – Mary Louis Foust got 14,901
votes (3.74%), and Robert McCreary Johnson got 5,838 votes (1.47%).
We kicked Mary and Robert's ass.
In 1971, “6 others” got 15,174
votes, which was only 3.4%. We kicked these 6 other's ass too,
comparatively speaking.
William Shires won 3,934 votes, 0.88%.
John E. Knipper won 3,128 votes, 0.70%.
Earl R. McIntosh won 2,496 votes,
0.56%.
Robert McCreary Johnson won 2,049
votes, 0.46%.
Jesse N.R. Cecil won 1,838 votes,
0.41%.
Wilton Benge Cupp won 1,729 votes,
0.39%.
xxx
A reference from Jake Payne: he
mentions that the 2015 GOP primary race was like Wallace Wilkinson's
win in 1987. While Steve Beshear and John Y. Brown Jr. were attacking
each other, Wallace Wilkinson came galloping triumphantly through
the middle!
Then he passed the Kentucky Lottery, to
go for college money, and KERA. After everybody got on board the
standards based movement, Kentuckians all lived happily ever after.
So when Wallace Wilkinson, one of the
Democratic candidates, got his own polling numbers wrong at a news
conference on Friday - he said the poll showed he was ahead when it
did not -it became front-page news. Calling All Consultants
Kentucky's Democratic primary, which is
likely to mean election here, has become ''a festival of
consultants,'' said Bob Squier, who is making television commercials
for former Gov. John Y. Brown, the front-runner to replace Gov.
Martha Layne Collins, a Democrat who by law is barred from seeking
re-election.
This being an off-year politically in
the nation, there are few other opportunities for political
consultants to show their stuff. So Kentucky has become a lucrative
showcase in which many of the best in the business have squared off,
much as directors at the Cannes Film Festival compete while savoring
the films made by their friends. Republicans Overlooked
Amid the Democratic sizzle, the
four-candidate Republican primary has received scant attention. State
Representative John Harper, a respected legislator who represents a
heavily Democratic district near Louisville, is the narrow favorite.
If the work of the Democratic pollsters
and media specialists threatens to overwhelm everything else, it is
not because the party's field lacks interesting characters.
The dominant character is Mr. Brown,
the man who made millions from Kentucky Fried Chicken and married
Phyllis George, a former Miss America and CBS News personality. Where
people stand on ''John Y.,'' as everyone calls him, may be the one
real issue in the race.
Mr. Brown was Governor from 1979 to
1983, after which he pretty much dropped out of sight, only to
reappear in time to file nomination papers. Glamorous Couple
Though some of his opponents have
charged Mr. Brown with unsavory associations, Kentucky voters
generally recall his administration as more honest than most. Mr.
Brown profits from the folk wisdom in a local political addage:
''Better a millionaire goin' in than a millionaire comin' out.''
Many Kentuckians also openly enjoyed
the glitter associated with Mr. Brown, and even more so with Ms.
George. She is usually the center of attention when the two campaign
together. Mr. Brown is received warmly. Ms. George is greeted with
excitement.
One of Mr. Brown's opponents, Lieut.
Gov. Steve Beshear (pronounced buh-SHEER), tried to turn Mr. Brown's
''wild nights in Vegas'' and his ''lavish days on the Florida Gold
Coast'' against him.
The words come from a television
commercial produced for Mr. Beshear by David Doak and Robert Shrum,
two of the top Democratic consultants. The spot was a humorous
takeoff on the television show ''Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,''
and it was designed not only to raise populist hackles, but also to
question whether Mr. Brown really had the motivation to be Governor.
Charges Bring Countercharges
''Out of office, the fab couple is not
on the A-list anymore,'' the commercial said, ''so they're running
for Governor again.'' The message, fed by some of Mr. Brown's own
statements about being bored, is that he views the Governorship as a
plaything.
But the commercial and other negative
spots seem to have backfired on Mr. Beshear. Mr. Squier fought back
with a series of biting commercials for Mr. Brown charging Mr.
Beshear with distortion. ''If a man's word isn't good, what does he
have left?'' asked one of the anti-Beshear commercials. Third
Candidate Moves In
Mr. Beshear's gambit is one of the
things that have made this a classic ''consultants' campaign.'' Mr.
Doak and Mr. Beshear's poll takers, Harrison Hickman and Paul Maslin,
contend that if Mr. Beshear had not resorted to the negative, Mr.
Brown would have sailed through with his base of 30 to 40 percent of
the vote. This would be more than enough in this eight-candidate
field in a state that has no runoff.
By going first, Mr. Beshear
inadvertently opened the way for Mr. Wilkinson, largely an unknown
who will spend up to $4 million, much of it his own.
After the harsh Brown-Beshear exchange,
Mr. Wilkinson ''came up the middle,'' in the words of Danny Briscoe,
his campaign manager.
Mr. Wilkinson's ads, put together by
David Sawyer, Scott Miller and Mandy Grunwald, did three things: They
quoted Mr. Brown and Mr. Beshear's contentions that the other would
raise taxes and said they were both right, they criticized ''personal
attacks'' and they pushed Mr. Wilkinson's call for a state lottery,
as an alternative to any tax increases. The lottery issue, and Mr.
Wilkinson, took off.
So Mr. Squier fired back again, with
ads charging Mr. Wilkinson with ''false advertising'' and reminding
voters that the businessman was ''unknown and untested.'' With Mr.
Beshear sinking too fast, Mr. Brown's campaign began to worry that
the anti-Brown vote would unite behind Mr. Wilkinson, and the Brown
campaign canceled some planned anti-Beshear ads. 'The One Without the
Millions'
Lost in all this electronic dust were
two other major contenders, former Gov. Julian Carroll and Grady
Stumbo, who served in Mr. Brown's Cabinet.
Mr. Carroll seems to be out of the
running. But Mr. Stumbo, far less well-financed than his adversaries,
is making a virtue of necessity.
A coal miner's son, Mr. Stumbo is the
only candidate from the mountains of eastern Kentucky. So this
weekend, the airwaves in the eastern part of the state carried a a
new Stumbo message. ''There are four other downstate candidates so
busy slinging mud at each other,'' the radio ads say, ''that we can
sneak up on 'em and win this thing.''
Mr. Stumbo's television commercials,
produced by Ken Swope, a consultant from Boston who specializes in
off-beat, anti-establishment campaigns, tout Mr. Stumbo as ''the one
without the millions with no strings attached.'' In contrast to the
highly stylized television commercials of the others, Mr. Stumbo's
aim for a down-home feel.
They show him speaking from a flatbed
truck in the warm light of late afternoon to a crowd of ordinary
Kentuckians. Behind him are an oak tree, a white one-room schoolhouse
and the green countryside.
For his part, Mr. Beshear is done with
negative advertising. In his final spots, also produced by Mr. Doak
and Mr. Shrum, Mr. Beshear seems to question whether this whole
process, which will cost about $10 million - or about $15 a primary
voter - made any sense at all.
''Sometimes in a campaign,'' Mr.
Beshear says, ''people lose sight of what it's really about.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/26/us/kentucky-s-race-is-the-very-model-of-a-modern-major-political-primary.html
xxx
A total of 14 losing Democratic
gubernatorial primary candidates have appeared on a subsequent
primary ballot for governor: Harry Waterfield (1947, 1959, 1967),
Jesse Cecil (1951, 1955, 1959, 1967, 1971), Bert Combs (1955, 1959
(won)), Mary Foust (1963, 1975), Wilton Cupp (1963, 1967, 1971),
William Shires (1967, 1971), Robert Johnson (1971, 1975), Harvey
Sloane (1979, 1983), Doris Binion (1979, 1983), W. Grady Stumbo
(1983, 1987), Steve Beshear (1987, 2011 (won)), Gatewood Galbreith
(1991, 1995, 2007), Jody Richards (2003, 2007), and Bullman Hensley
(2003, 2007).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lib.umn.edu%2Fcspg%2Fsmartpolitics%2F2015%2F04%2Fa_brief_history_of_kentucky_de.php&ei=1jBeVezcLI_boAS3oIC4BQ&usg=AFQjCNGTVPhdsTCk9mvmvF4exO6-X9-C4Q&sig2=efRCx_W6WO61klWxEObgTA&bvm=bv.93756505,bs.1,d.aWw
So if
they're say Conway v Young was the biggest blowout because of the
wide margin, okay... maybe.
In
2007, Steve Beshear took the Democratic primary with 100% of the
vote. He blew every single Democrat in Kentucky out of the water, and
retained his Kingship. Beshear defeated every single Democrat in
Kentucky then almost as bad as Mitch McConnell did in 2014.
We also did better than Will T. Scott.
Will T. got 15,364 votes, 7.17%. We got twice as many votes, and 3
times as many percentage points. And Will T. had money... and
recognition as a real candidate by the Republican party. Will T.
debated the other candidates.
Even with those advantages,
Young/Masters did better than him, in our respective races. 80/20 is
4/1, but 49/7 is 7/1. That's a bigger blowout.
Also, in total votes, we beat Ol' Will
T. Ol' Will T. got 15,000 votes. Young/Masters got 38,000. Will T.'s
loss was a “blowout”, and was breezily, easily won.
So, the margin of points, I understand,
but we did well... considering the deck was stacked against us.
And if Jack wasn't worried, then why
did he spend 41% of his $2.4M? Jack told the media that he wasn't
worried publicly, but privately he was. But the media did his bidding
anyways... when the media runs hit pieces on you as soon as the gate
opens, they're scared. But that's doing the bidding of the
opposition... esp when it's lies.
Ross Perot never broke the 19%
threshold. We're both Greens (though Geoff Young did once ask me
“What does Progressive mean?”), and compared to Nader, we kicked
his ass. Nader barely got 5%.
xxx
Hell, even the first part of the
tweeter's post from above is wrong. While Bevin v. Comer's close race
was separated by only 83 votes, in 1899, while the process was
different, the Democratic primary between William Justus Goebel and
William J. Stone (after Wat Hardin was knocked out) came down to only
30 votes, albeit after the 26th time the electors voted at
the Democratic Convention at Music Hall on Market Street in
Louisville, but still.
I wonder if the Music Hall is still
there anymore.
But 30 votes is a slimmer margin of
victory than 83 votes. So that tweeter, while thinking he had a great
one-liner, clearly didn't care if what he was saying was true. I
think it was some ignorant ass mainstreamer too. Some news outfit.
Beating this dead horse even deader,
let's look at Kentucky's 1795 Governor's general election. 1795 was a
time when Kentucky didn't have primaries at all. Logan beat Garrard,
21 electors to 17. Logan had won by 4 votes, which is much narrowers
than Bevin's 83 vote lead over Comer. And like Goebel over Taylor in
1899, and Bush over Gore in 2000, the popular vote didn't stop
Garrard the loser from winning.
Since Logan didn't have the absolute
majority, just a plurality, another vote was taken, with Garrard and
Logan being the two main candidates. The second time, Garrard bested
Logan by less than 20 votes.
xxx
Since Judge Wingate believed Beshear's
lawyers about the 1904 or 1902 ruling, I wanted to reference some old
time cases, and got caught up in reading how the Democratic primaries
were ran in 1899.
In 1899, Kentucky didn't have an at
large primary for nomination; instead, they had a caucus, a
convention, where delegates from different districts around Kentucky,
came to vote. In total, there were about 1,000 delegates, more or
less, who decided who the Democratic nominee for Governor was going
to be.
In 1899, the main convention took place
in Louisville at the Music Hall on Market Street (which I believe
isn't there anymore). The main convention took place after the county
conventions took place. The county would choose their delegates, and
then send them to Louisville for the main headliner Democratic
Convention/Caucus.
I can imagine that voice voting and a
simple raising of the hands could be utilized in these conventions,
but I bet they used secret paper ballots, and counted up the paper
ballots by hand.
So here's the drama that went down in
1899:
References:
Political Parties and Primaries in
Kentucky
By Penny
M. Miller, Malcolm E. Jewel
xxx
The FACTS:
I predicted that we'd get a 13% turnout
rate. Then I heard 7%. Then Alison said 10%. 13% was the turnout rate
for Kentucky's Presidential primary 2012... which should be higher,
since it's the Presidency.
Matt Bevin got 70,479 votes. Jack
Conway got 140,627 votes... so, so far, Jack Conway wins. By 70,00
votes.
But not if you add total Republicans
versus total Democrats.
214,187 Republicans voted, but only
178,514 Democrats voted. This means Matt Bevin wins by 35,000 votes,
if everybody votes strictly down party lines, and nobody else votes
on Nov 3, 2015.
xxx
Concession Speech:
First of all, thank you... list all of
Kentucky's media who did not cover me.
I'm sure you're 100% complete blackout
of our campaign had nothing to do with the turnout rate. NOT
There are a few notable exceptions.
Thank you Joe Arnold. Bill Goodman.
Also, thank you Jake Payne for not
being a total asshole. You ignored me, but that was a victory... in
fact, how how you're not the Governor? You don't have $500 filing
fee?
Xxx
what can Democrats do better?
Recruit new vibrant membership.
Hold Democratic debates... it would be
cheaper; if ran like Republicans. Hal Heiner did soil the bed, Matt
Bevin is right about that; but before, and after he did, they talked
about the issues and remained respectful of one another. Hal Heiner
also looked hurt when Matt Bevin basically said that he shitted
himself; Hal Heiner said... “but we're a Republican family”... :(
My point... just stick to the issues;
sure, we hate each other, but so do those who rap battle, and play
basketball... but we shake hands at the end... we leave the war on
the floor; on the debate stage; this enables excitement for Democrats
to be stirred up, to talk about OUR issues, and figure out solutoins
to those problems;
132 Great Ideas. That's not worth
discussing? Then we're like, so fucked.
#111
#34
#79
xxx
12.6% turned out to vote; 12.6% of
Kentuckians understand how democracy works... OR
The 37,887 Kentucky citizens who voted
for Geoff Young and I are perhaps the smartest, most brilliant,
Kentucky citizens in the Commonwealth.
Maybe the 87.4% are absolute geniuses;
they know the system is fucked, so they don't participate in it;
Kentucky's electoral system doesn't have democratic legitimacy; the
overwhelming vast majority stayed home.
Those are my people. The 87.4% also
stood in solidarity with me. So... if you add the 87.4% to the ...
the 1 million in poverty; the 650,000
on ObamaCare; the youth... are all Kentuckians who do not vote.
Poor Kentuckians do not vote. Young
Kentuckians do not vote.
Xxx
2 party dictatorship is a sham, and
it's absolutely destroyed our State;
what wins elections is big money, and a
compliant media, a crappy education that doesn't teach Kentuckians
democratic practices or civic duty, or opportunities
Rand Paul pulled Conway to the right,
and I'm pulling him to the left... so, this gives Conway a perfect
opportunity, to just be himself. Don't be plastic. Be real. Be
honest. Be populist, inspire us to vote for you. You got over $1M in
the bank.
Since Conway will run right, and the
Republican candidate will run left, Progressives should be nervous
about the few liberal Democratic issues Conway is actually for...
gay marriage
Unions
Kynect
So far, Conway has been mum on these
issues. Economic issues should be easy for politicians to pick up.
xxx
5 main issues of Republicans:
Repudiate their positions:
Abortion – liberal abortion laws, and
sex education and contraception are smarter, and saves more lives.
Save babies lives by being Pro-Planned Parenthood.
Reich2Work – be for Unions, and
declare war on poverty, homelessness, in Kentucky;
Charter Schools - Kentucky's education
system needs a voucher system to force it to become democratic, and
offer useful curriculum that will help the social mobility of all the
students, not just the wealthiest. Also, strengthen the SBDMs
(Site-based decision-making councils, which gets parental input on
major issues in the schools).
Kynect – Be for Kynect. Kentuckians
need it.
Homophobes – be for Gay Marriage.
It's 2015 for god's sake. Also, those who are turned on the most by
gay porn, are homophobic men, which points to a major flaw with
machismo; they pretend to hate gays because they hate the gay man
inside of themselves. No wonder men have so many problems we need to
fix about ourselves.
Medical Marijuana – be for it; change
your mind like you did with Gay rights, and with Iraq War, and the
Bush Tax cuts;
Common Core: they don't know what
they're talking about on this. Just look at, use common sense. So
far, Common Core mandates Kentucky's kids learn Math and English. Be
pro-Math and English; There is a textbook monopoly aspect to this.
These are the few issues the
Republicans have put forth and seem to be nearly unanimous with.
Also, have your own ideas.
War on Poverty is a knockout homerun of
an Issue to fight for; it's traditional Democratic, and Christian,
and we've got over 1 million poor people living here.
Police Accountability; be for the Rule
of Law; don't be a Corrupt Governor, like Ernie Fletcher;
xxx
Who Loses?
Environmentalists
Gay Rights Advocates
Folks for the Homeless, Poor, Working,
and Middle Classes
Minorities (Conway hates Mexicans; no
amnesty for the 1 Mexican in your town cutting your tobacco!)
Crazy People
Neighborhoods with Crazy People
Those Who are Held victim by Rapist
Jailers, or Abusive, violent, or trigger happy bloody murder'n police
officers
Potheads
Cancer patients
Glaucoma patients
Anxious patients
Non-psychotic patients
Progressives
xxx
Who wins?
Corrupt public officials
6 figure salaried bureaucrats, who
double dip their pensions
xxx
why dont progressives stay in Kentucky?
Ashley Judd comes and visits us, but
she's never here.
George Clooney and Johnny Depp, Tom
Cruise, I've only heard from being from here.
HST never came back. Muhammad Ali was
chased out of a restaurant, nearly murdered, and retaliated by
throwing his1960 Boxing Gold medal he had won in Rome into the Ohio
River.
Diane Sawyer rarely comes back here.
Jennifer Lawrence doesn't come back here.
Ronnie Lee Smith was murdered by
trumped up charges.
Gatewood was shamed his entire life by
the media. He also had some right-wing ideas.
Curtis Morrison, who recorded Mitch
McConnell talking about shitting all over Ashley Judd, was pushed out
of Kentucky because of Kentucky's vulture media. Mitch McConnell
called Morrison “Nixonian”, and immediately, the media dogs went
after the freedom fighter, instead of calling Mitch out on his
hypocrisy.
Right now, Mitch McConnell is fighting
for the Patriot Act. That's his legacy, a legacy that he wasn't
criticized for, not to mention the entire 80s that he helped to fuck
America up. The Patriot Act is more Nixonian than Nixon. Instead of
taping staffers, Mitch McConnell wants to tape the entire country.
Read our emails, and listen to our phone calls. Mitch McConnell puts
Nixon to shame. Nixon established the EPA.
Jack Conway, like Mitch McConnell, is
also against the EPA. And Jack Conway, like Mitch McConnell, is for
the Patriot Act.
Kentucky's media is too scared to stand
up to public officials; it's easier to just parrot them, assume all
they say is true, never buck the cart, and keep getting your good
access to folks who have databases on all of us, we the people.
Kentucky's media lynched Curtis
Morrison, for doing 1/1 millionth of a “violation” of a person's
trust and privacy of Mitch has been doing his entire life. But don't
expect Ky's media to call out this hypocrisy. They're all bought and
paid for by the same corporations, 1%, and bankers.
Video cameras vindicate and expunge the
good, while indicting and jailing the guilty. #kygub15
Yall like my tap dancing?
My/Our campaign strategy, since I
jumped in late, had no money, no family, no friends...
1- Personal insults, name-calling
2- Media, interviews, forums
3- Lawsuits
4- Use the Internet
xxx
The selection of Jack Conway had
nothing to do with his policy.
A compliant media; somewhat savvy
politician; shitty media, shitty education, lack of political will on
the populace's part; lack of knowledge about our most basic duty as
citizens in a democratic republic; lack of understanding of
democracy;
Democratic Party protecting it's own;
select Democratic Party; Steve Beshear had the power, and
Conway was his hand picked successor;
he's got his blessing; he's got his connections; he's got his
guidance and as an adviser, or to use as an ambassador, etc.
Young/Masters Accomplishments:
-showed all polls in Ky are wrong
-have Conway sue Marathon Gas station
-keeping conversation fairly civil;
stuck to “issues”
-MONEY... $2.4 million... 41% of it was
spent?
-proving all of Ky's media polls wrong
-37,887 new Democrats; Democrats who
were frustrated with status quo, with Jack Conway, for some reason;
for me, for Geoff, or anti-Conway, as a protest vote; I will not
endorse Conway; not yet, at least; let's see if the 2 who filed as
Independents jump into the race, and let's hear what they have to say
about Cannabis. Just medical marijuana? That's politician speak. We
already have “medical” marijuana, with CBD... and that's shitty.
That's barely marijuana. That's barely even medical marijuana. Whole
plant medicine is the only way to go. THC has many medicinal
qualities. Plus, it's cool to socialize with folks, and to just chill
man. If you voted for me, hold your vote back. Get the politician to
promise you something specifically.
-body cameras on the LMPD?
-the media not running the headline,
“Conway Nukes Young”
-ballot access; while they pull tricks
in Executive office, we're still on the ballot; so democracy is still
alive in the Commonwealth... barely
The Polling:
January 28-29, 2015. Harper Poll.
Harper Polling was the closest poll. Geoff Young had 7% very
favorable, and 15% somewhat favorable. That's 22% favorable overall.
Young was also 22% Unfavorable overall, and 56% weren't sure.
http://harperpolling.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/15-01-ky-gov-general-election-toplines.pdf
Problems with Drug War; it's failed;
it's criminal. You're being an asshole.
Solution: Legalize Cannabis like in
Colorado, and decriminalize the rest, like in Portugal; change
criminalizing addiction, to treating addiction; change from violence
and fascism, to one of love and compassion. Also, I'd like to smoke
peacefully in my house, and perhaps even at a coffee shop with
friends, without having to move to Alaska. Cannabis Gardens,
everybody, smoke a joint, and chill the fuck out. It would make
things more peaceful, and great for our economy.
Patriot Act. While his access to Ky's
computers has garnered many convictions against child pornographers,
and that's good, the infringement on our freedom by shadowy private
pocket tyrannies isn't constitutional; it goes against the 4th
Amendment; the way the federal government gets away with their crimes
is because we're still a nation at war, so therefore, Obama can write
any goddamned executive order he pleases. It also suggests Conway
will be a tyrant, a maximum leader, an absolute dictating monarchist.
He also said that Guatanomo Bay detainees shouldn't get their day in
civil court. That's tyranny... but everyman would be a tyrant if we
let them. Not an excuse... watch out for Conway's professional
corruptionist slide.
Bevin is anti-Patriot Act.
The issues I am for, and Matt Bevin is
for, should be implemented, because we represent the far left and the
far right, so when both the far left and the far right agree on
something, it's right.
Blindly backs police and prosecutors;
sometimes, they're criminal too; the corruption slide is almost
inevitable; he's already corrupt... so if elected Governor, he'll be
corrupt as fuck... just depends on how good he is at it.
Bush Tax Cuts. This issue was quite
appalling to me. It says Jack doesn't understand how the economy is
supposed to work. Of course you raise taxes on the wealthy during a
recession. You raise spending, create more jobs... be a “stimulus”
to the economy. We're all Kanyes now.
Anti-EPA is anti-environment; he's
pro-MTR too; so no clean air or water? Why wouldn't Ky design their
own plan? We can put whatever benchmarks we want in there. Corporate
“progress” is “fine”,
xxx
Bevin isn't an angel either.
On marijuana, he said this:
He's for random drug testing everybody.
His stance against Common Core and
ObamaCare is Mitch's strategy …
xxXxx
running for office was the easiest
thing in the world to do. Have gumption; get some balls, or vagina.
You don't need to be smart, or to understand the law, or be qualified
in any meaningful way, whatsoever. You just need to be a Kentuckian,
at least for a year, or 6, depending on if you're running for Mayor
or Governor, respectively, and live here, and pay your filing fee.
Just raise your hand. That's all I did.
And I'm still on the ballot, as long as
Geoff Young keeps his court battles going.
xxXxx
Comments
Post a Comment