A little known fact in Kentucky is that state law dictates a candidate cannot appear more than once on a ballot. When applied to Rand Paul, this means he cannot appear on the Kentucky ballot running for Senator and President of the United States simultaneously. Paul had been lobbying for a change in the law, however, that effort was blunted by state democrats.

Report from the Washington Examiner:

Sen. Rand Paul may have to choose between keeping his seat in the U.S. Senate and gambling on the White House in 2016. As of now, the Kentucky Republican cannot have it both ways.

Kentucky law states that “no candidate’s name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once,” except in special cases — none of which apply to Paul.

Further complicating matters is that the state’s deadline for filing to run for U.S. Senate comes just before the first 2016 presidential primary is expected to take place. If that schedule holds, Paul wouldn’t have the option of seeing how he does in the early primaries before deciding on a Senate re-election bid.

True, Kentucky’s law means Paul is theoretically eligible to run for president in other states, but he cannot appear as a senator and presidential candidate on the state’s ballot. And although Paul has claimed in the past that he intends to run for re-election to the Senate, recent behavior clearly indicates that he is interested in the White House.

Pretty interesting set of circumstances. Paul’s desire to change the law alludes to his inevitable presidential campaign but will he be certain enough to forgo a backup position in the US Senate? I’m thinking that with all the time Paul’s put into setting up a 2016 platform of sorts, he’ll take the chance.

6 COMMENTS

  1. Gee Senator “LIFE’S A B*TCH”
    I hear tell some people in America have to give up health care and don’t get a pension when they leave their jobs. Can’t imagine that can you?

  2. This rule should be instituted nationwide. The best (worst) example of double-dealing was Joe Lieberman. He “ran” for vice president under Gore in 2000, but he was also running for his senate seat at the same time. Consequently, he didn’t care if he became veep. In fact.. .

    My theory, even at the time, was that Lieberman did a machiavellian calculation: (A) He was a shoo-in for senate, (B) The veep run was a toss-up, (C) Who really wants to be vice president?? (D) However, RUNNING for vice president usually puts one in line to run for president.

    SO–the best outcome for him would be to win the senate seat and lose the veep seat. That’s why he didn’t seriously campaign. And at the debates, he kept telling Dick Cheney, “I agree,” and “You’re right.”

    Unfortunately, for him, his ploy was too obvious. So when he tried to build “Joe-mentum” in 2004, Dems said, “no thanks–with friends like you, who needs enemies?” My guess is that he would have gone on the debates and told George Bush, “I agree,” and “You’re right!” since he was still sitting in his cushy senate seat.

    I don’t think one should necessarily resign a seat to run for higher office, but I do not think anyone should run for two seats concurrently. If nothing else, it’s a terrible waste of tax funds–if he wins the higher office and a new election must be held for the seat he already won.

    OR–a new rule could be that if you win both seats, the person with the second-higher votes (your opponent) takes the seat you give up. . . .

    • Goethe;
      Another instance would be having to give up your elected seat if you decide to switch parties while in office. You can then run on your new parties ticket for that position. Loyal party members who voted for you shouldn’t have their campaign donations nor support go to traitor elected officials. Phil Gramm of Texas took this route giving up his Congressman seat in the 1980’s .

      • Yeah. I am particularly upset with those who have changed parties right after being elected. It’s a different matter if they’ve been in office, find that they can’t stand their own party and change.

        We do vote for the individual, not the party, so I would not expect them to resign in order to change parties.

  3. File under Which Way Is The Wind Blowing or “Campaign Warming”

    “At one time Rand Paul called for ending all foreign aid ……..including to Israel. On June 19th Rand Paul published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal recommending that we not take sides in the Iraq civil war. A week ago in another W.S.J. op-ed he argued that American interventionist empowers the ISIS. On the 29th of August he “E” mailed Associated Press to say he would seek and destroy ISIS militarily as President.” What is it about one term Senators that they believe they can see so clearly what needs to be done and hear the whisper of the public calling them?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/04/new-rand-paul-op-ed-if-i-were-president-id-have-acted-more-decisively-against-isis/

Comments are closed.