Court overturns state's first-on-ballot rule

[Judi Lynn]

Court overturns state's first-on-ballot rule

2 hours, 9 minutes ago

The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that listing candidates of the winning party from the last election first on ballots is unconstitutional.

Ruling in a lawsuit filed by Democrats, the court said being first on the ballot is an advantage, and giving one party precedence over the other is not necessary to make ballots manageable.

Using the same logic, the court struck down the practice of alphabetizing the names of candidates within a party who are running for the same office. That was legally required when the suit was filed, but has since changed.

Both practices violate the state constitution, the court ruled unanimously.
(snip/...)

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Court+overturns+state's+first-on-ballot+rule&articleId=4b019f90-6014-44f2-816f-cb46fe200ad0

[napi21]

1. OK, so if first on the ballot is unconstitutional, and you can't

alphabetize the names within the parties, HOW are the names to be listed?

I agree that the "first on the ballot" position just because that's the winning party from last time is just stuipd, but if both practices are unconstitutional, how in the world are you supposed to list the names????

[TexasProgresive]

3. How about random selection-

Seems fair to me-like a coin toss at the begining of a football game. That way no one has an advantage except by chance or as God wills- if that's how you want to look at it.

[Trillo]

7. Would this be 'closed source code'

or 'proprietary source code' randomization?

[Demit]

4. By lottery.

Not kidding--that's how it's done in PA, they draw straws or something. It's up to chance.

[TexasProgresive]

2. Which one of the 50?

Oh it's New Hampshire. Well thank you.

[Ian David]

5. It's going to be decided by playing Rock, Paper Scisors now. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

6. That would be really

cool.:yourock:

Can you just picture that be televised !