Rand Paul Can't Run For Two Offices on Kentucky Ballot

[kickitup]

http://www.kentucky.com/2013/12/20/2998404/rand-paul-allies-dont-see-kentucky.html

Should be loads of fun to watch Rand take on states rights, LOL.

[davidpdx]

1. I don't think he's going to run for president

There are a couple of different things he could do:

1) If we wanted to run in 2016 take a gamble and forfeit Kentucky. Kentucky isn't that many EV. Granted it would be a stupid gamble, but he is batshit.

2) Run for reelection in 2016, wait to see if a D wins and run in 2020 when his term still has 2 years left. Not a great option because he'd be running against an incumbent, but if things were going bad it would set up a run. Again, not a very decent option, but one at the very least.

3) I'm also wondering if he were to run in 2016 and he put his VP on the ballot in Kentucky if he would end up getting the EVs.

[Gothmog]

2. Why is this unconstitutional?

There is no right to run for office much less two of five. If Rand Paul is actually popular, the state can change the law. Rand Paul is not that popular

[karynnj]

3. The state can change the law - and might if they thought it to their advantage

I have always seen things better when the people are Democrats. John Kerry would have faced the same thing in Massachusetts had he run in 2008. In preparation to 2004, they had changed the law that determined succession - taking away Romney's ability to replace Kerry had he won.
However in 2006, when there was some possibility JK would run again, there was NO action taken to change this rule. Unless the state was incredibly behind their Senator running for President, it likely would not change in any state.

There were other states that allowed you to run for two seats - two examples were CT where Lieberman ran for Senate and VP and NC, where Edwards COULD have run for both, but had opted not to before he lost the primaries. However, I can't think of anyone who ran both as President and Senator. (Gephardt did not run for President and House in 2004 - though he obviously did run for both in an earlier election.)

That Edwards and Gephardt opted to put all their "eggs" into winning the Presidential nomination suggests why even if it is allowed it could be a bad idea. Had he run for Senate, he would have been hit for NOT spending enough time in NC and for missing as many votes as ANY Presidential candidate has to miss. In addition, Edwards ran to the left of his positions taken as a NC Senator as required to be viable nationally. He could not simultaneously run on 2 different platforms. His Presidential campaign would be hurt by the time spent in NC.

Now, it might be that Rand could run in the primary just as he would in KY, but there would be a need to move left in the general election and there would be the time in KY and the attacks on missed votes. It could result in him losing both.

[Gothmog]

4. Texas changed the law for LBJ and Lloyd Bentsen

Kentucky has not changed the law for Rand Paul in part because Paul is a nut case

[karynnj]

5. Thanks, I was trying to come up with an example, but didn't think back long enough

- and I did not know that Texas also had not allowed it.

I would imagine that a state might do that only if a big majority of the state were proud that their representative was a candidate.

[tritsofme]

6. I agree this law is likely unconstitutional.

Just as states imposing term limits on federal officeholders is unlawful. States do not get to restrict eligibility for federal office more than is proscribed in the constitution.