Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Massachusetts

hughee99

(16,113 posts)

1. As the republican nominee for the Senate race, he shouldn't need signatures to be on the ballot.

Reply to TheCowsCameHome (Original post)

Sun Feb 19, 2012, 04:42 PM

Feb 2012

As I understand it, tea party people are trying to get some Senate legislation introduced, and if they get enough signatures, they're going to give it to Brown and ask that he propose it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why does Scott Brown need signatures to get on the ballot? [View all] TheCowsCameHome Feb 2012 OP

As the republican nominee for the Senate race, he shouldn't need signatures to be on the ballot. hughee99 Feb 2012 #1

Yes he does--he needs ten thousand of them. MADem Feb 2012 #3

I was under the impression he already submitted them a few weeks ago. hughee99 Feb 2012 #4

Maybe some of the signatures were invalidated? MADem Feb 2012 #5

It could be, hughee99 Feb 2012 #6

Yup, even Kennedy needed them back in his last.. MarkCharles Feb 2012 #10

I signed for him and was pleased to do it. nt MADem Feb 2012 #11

Nope. If you want on the ballot, you have to prove that people want you there. MADem Feb 2012 #2

I signed one for Elizabeth Warren yesterday MannyGoldstein Feb 2012 #7

I'd sign one for her, TheCowsCameHome Feb 2012 #9

And that is the way it should be for every election. RC Feb 2012 #8