How many states have Sore Loser Laws?

[Protagoras]

I heard today that Ohio has such a law and that many other states also have such laws. In some ways I'm stunned that we need to actually spell out concepts like this...because it's so damn obvious that it's a slimeball thing to do. Yet apparently it's happened enough that people have had to act on it.

If you are worried you won't win and you don't respect the process then declair as an indepenedent up front and take your shot otherwise sit down and shut up when you lose.

I would love to know what states do NOT have such laws...and I think since they appear necessary it's time to introduce a law like this in CT.

In fact if it's permissable I think a SORE LOSER law should appear on the November ballot...I think it might be good for the people of CT to vote for this at the same time they vote for their Senator.

[LSparkle]

1. I hate to harken back to RW slogans from 2000 but

Joementum is a LOSERMAN (as in "Sore/Loserman").

[HereSince1628]

2. Well, it shows no respect for the democratic processes of the primary

I'm at a loss why ANY professional Dem would accept that.

[azurnoir]

3. Spoiler man

It seems like he's trying to make sure Lamont loses, but he'll probibly wind-up as a repuke spoiler.

[longship]

4. Who's going to write the bill for the CT legislature?

It needs to be entitled "The Sore Loserman Bill".

Feed it to some good Dems in the CT legislature. Let's get this thing on the hump. I know that it won't apply to Joe, but maybe just the legislative action itself will convince Joe that what he is doing is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Tesha]

13. The CT Secretary of State said *SHE* was going to submit such a law. (NT)

[Xithras]

5. How can that be constitutional?

The constitution has made it clear that any citizen of the proper age can run for any federal office in the land. Because the constitution doesn't recognize primaries (which are elections within the party, and not for any office), I can't see how any Sore Loserman laws could be constitutional. It WOULD be legal to ban him from running as a member of a party that doesn't endorse him, and many states do have laws doing just that, but a law prohibiting someone from running for federal office because of a primary vote?

I'd be curious to know whether any of these laws have ever been tested.

[Nye Bevan]

7. I think the law says

that he cannot run in November with the word "Democrat" appearing by his name (so "independent Democrat" would not be allowed) which seems reasonable, to avoid confusion. But I agree that it would be unconstitutional to simply say he is not allowed to run at all.

[Protagoras]

8. That's why I'm asking for info from someone who has seen them

apparently they exist. And while anyone can run there are certainly many constitutional laws that structure and limit HOW they run on the ballot so I suspect there could very well be teeth to such measures.

[NoPasaran]

11. The Constitution addresses qualifications for serving in an office

The actual procedures for voting and elections are left up to the states, which have pretty wide latitude.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. We don't need one in Washington

Independents and minor party candidates must hold a "nominating convention" on or between the last Sunday of June and the first Sunday of July in order to qualify to file as a candidate. All candidates, independent, minor party and major party, file as candidates in the third full week of July. Our primaries are on the second third Tuesday of September. So it is impossible for a primary loser to get back on the ballot as an independent.

The best a sore loserman... sorry, sore loser could do is run in November as a write-in. Even that would be very difficult: I believe they are prohibited from raising any money (having officially lost the election for which they were a registered candidate) and I know for certain they may not spend any of the money they have previously collected except for retiring existing campaign debt.

[Ino]

9. In St. Louis...

voters recalled Democratic alderman Tom Baur for trying to seize homes/businesses via eminent domain to put up a Quik Trip. In the special election to select a new alderman, Baur ran for his old job as an independent. He was prohibited from putting "Democrat" on his signs, but he wanted to put the graphic of a donkey on it. He claimed the graphic only referred to his pet donkey. Now, he did have a pet donkey which he'd ride around the neighborhood, but the donkey had died. I'm not sure, but I think they wouldn't let him use the donkey graphic either.

He was at the polling place when I went to vote. He stuck out his hand to me and said, "Hi, I'm Tom Baur, your alderman"! I gave him a dirty look and refused to shake his hand.

A Republican also ran in this special election, hoping the Democratic vote would split and she'd sneak in. She did not indicate that she was Republican in any of her literature or signs. She wanted to be elected on her individual merits, she said. (St. Louis City is staunchly Democratic, so of course she'd have no chance otherwise.)

Baur lost. The Repug lost. We're not stupid.

[NoPasaran]

10. In Texas

You have to file to run either as a candidate in a primary or intent to run as an independent early in January. You can do one or the other; you cannot decide to run as an independent if you lose your primary.

[Protagoras]

12. That sounds like the most honorable, honest

and sensible approach...and from Texas no less :D