Random Thoughts on Assorted Topics:
Let’s get down and party. Hey, the more parties, the more fun. Right?
Well, apparently some old fuddy-duddies don’t think so. That’s why the California Justice Committee and The Constitution Party of California have sued the California Secretary of State to get her to loosen up a bit.
It seems she won’t let them on next November’s ballot because they didn’t meet the state’s “party qualification” deadline in January.
Those qualifications include either getting 103,000 voter registration affidavits with the parties on them or 1,030,000 petition signatures.
You’d think a week or two on Facebook and Twitter ought to take care of that, but the parties say the requirements and the early deadline are a “severe restriction” on their First Amendment rights and the state has no legitimate interest in establishing these rules.
I’m not sure about the date thing – the Republicans and Democrats have been working on this election for at least the last decade or so. Where have these other guys been? (Continued…)
But that’s an awful lot of voters to sign up unless you can afford to pay guys outside grocery stores who’ll say anything to get you to sign.
So what should a party have to do to qualify for the ballot?
I want to be able to vote for the silliest-sounding group on the list. I have a constitutional right to be entertained.
Or at least I should.
By the way, you’re probably wondering what the California Justice Committee and The Constitution Party are.
I had to do a little research on this.
First off, it turns that a song called Justice by The Party has nothing to do with this but the California Justice Committee was apparently formed to get the Justice Party on the ballot.
The Justice Party wants marriage equality, an end to discrimination, “compassionate” immigration reform, a repeal of the Patriot Act, and tough environmental regulation.
The Constitution Party wants families defined as a husband and wife with kids “as divinely instituted,” protection of the border, and rejection of the “perceived threat” of man-made global warming.
So, essentially, they cancel each other out. Might as well leave them both off the ballot….
Travolta. OK, be honest. How many of you out there started to think of Hairspray in a whole new light after hearing about the lawsuits claiming John Travolta tried to pay for massages from guys?
You get heartfelt performances with proper casting. (continued…)
Preventive law. CBS last week sued ABC over a new reality show that, allegedly, was copied from the series, Big Brother.
I don’t know whether this is true or not, but, at least according to the lawsuit, not only are the two shows identical, but ABC hired away 19 people from Big Brother for its show, “Life in a Glass House.”
I was really hoping the new show would be about people running into walls and breaking things – that would be entertaining, But, no, it’s about silly contests and voting people out of the house (presumably so they can look back in and laugh at the people still trapped in there).
So here’s what I’m wondering: assuming some of these allegations are true, how does legal counsel for ABC sign off on a copy of another show being produced by guys hired away from that show who signed non-disclosure agreements?
Do you see a malpractice issue down the road here somewhere?