The left is having convulsions over whether or not Olivia Cortes is a "real" candidate. I can understand if they want to whine, but does anybody really think that the courts should have the power to remove an otherwise qualified candidate from the ballot because her reason for running doesn't satisfy the courts? How about Ralph Nader or various Libertarian candidates--they are unlikely to win and oftentimes just run in order to make a statement. Should they be removed?
Let's say for the sake of argument that Olivia Cortes stands up in court and says..."I love Russell Pearce and I want to help him anyway I can, so when he offered to personally collect 100% of my signatures, I said go for it. My goal is to have so many people vote for me that I spoil it for that goof ball Mr. Lewis."
Are you saying that she should be removed from the ballot even though she is otherwise qualified? Based on her goals? Where does the court get this power to remove candidates for their goals? Even if this power existed, is there a set of justiciable principles that would allow a reasoned judge to make an informed decision? Where is the limiting principle--could a judge remove a Green Party candidate in a Democratic district, or a Libertarian candidate from a Republican District? What if a Republican runs against Steve Gallardo or Kyrsten Sinema and says "I know I won't win, but I want to really screw up their Summer and make them spend a lot of money." Can a judge toss the candidate because his goals aren't legitimate?
Really, is that what you want?
I'm seriously surprised that anyone would advocate this position and frankly shocked that a lawyer would actually file the case.