Write in of Ron Paul won't be counted in IL - Protest vote

Looks like the "rules" don't allow an official write in campaign for Ron Paul.. If you write him in, wich isn't a bad idea at all, the officials won't count it.. LOL

It will be disregarded and if you do this consider it a protest vote.. of none of the above


http://www.elections.... (pdf)

D. WRITE-IN CANDIDATE PROCEDURES

Write-in candidates must file a notarized declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate not later than the 61st day before the election, with the proper election authority or authorities in those jurisdictions in which they are seeking to be a write-in candidate (i.e., a write-in candidate for President must file a Declaration of Intent with every county clerk and board of election commissioners in the State). If a candidate who filed nomination papers is removed from the ballot after the 61st day prior to the election (due to an objection filed against the candidate), the candidate may file a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate not later than the 7th day before the election. A list of the names and addresses of all Illinois election authorities is available on the Board's website at www.elections.il.gov Declaration of Intent forms are not filed with the State Board of Elections. (10 ILCS 5/7-59, 17-16.1, 18-9.1)


A candidate for whom nomination papers have been filed as a partisan candidate at a primary election, and who is defeated for nomination, may not file a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate at that General Election. (10 ILCS 5/17-16.1, 18-9.1)


Forms for the write-in declaration can be obtained from the election authority or the State Board of Elections.


If there is some reason that you know of why this rule would not apply to us please let us know.

Then what is even the point of having a write in line/box on the ballot? Just more "illusion" of choice hocus pocus to be sure. And people wonder why I'm honestly considering just voting for my dog! If write in votes are only going to be considered as a protest anyway, maybe it's best to remove all doubt?

Virtually all write-in legalese in states have an authority clause by which the rules we follow are subject. It does not matter if we follow the rules, because they can still say "no."

Statute ALWAYS gives the government the final say no matter if we follow the rules or not. Statutes are called "color of law" or the "appearance of law" when in fact it is no law because if you follow the law, the government can STILL say "no."

Statute has replaced common law because common law requires integrity by those who hold power. Common law restricts power by government. In other words, if common law says that if you follow agreed-upon rules for a write-in candidate, the action stands as binding. There is no, what I call an escape clause, or "authority clause."

You can always tell the difference between a law of statute and a common law: The former always gives government the final say no matter what the rule says and the latter requires government to make binding by virtue of obedience to rule. One makes the people servant, the other makes the government servant.

Arrowhead>>>-------statute----->

I'm just curious -

I am now an IL voter, and I still plan to write in Ron Paul as I can't vote for Obama or McCain. I was wondering if anyone else plans to stand with me?

I have, from day one, steadfastly stood my ground, saying
NO MATTER WHAT, I would vote for Dr. Ron Paul in November,
and if he was not on the ballot, I would write him in.

The following post, from another forum, is causing me to reconsider my thinking.
He is referring to the 5-4 Supreme Court decision on the DC Gun Ban.
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Dayna

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's ruling by the Supreme Court shows the importance of a conservative approach to
selecting members of the high court. Had Al Gore or John Kerry been elected, the ruling
would have been in the opposite direction.

In the next four years the president will nominate at least one and possibly three new justices.
Will Obama nominate strict constitutionalists or liberal (the constitution is still being written) justices?

Please reconsider writing in Ron Paul or Bob Barr or Ralph Nader. Make your point in another way.
One of the two main candidates will win. This we can't change. It is a fact. You will be settling for
the lesser of two evils, But our nation and rights will be much safer.

Make a stand, make your point but please don't waste your vote.

Thanks

I disagree with this person's position. Consider the fact many of the judges appointed by Bush also voted against the ruling. Alito's name springs to mind immediately.

Good point! See, it does help to brainstorm about these things! :)

Dayna