Green Party candidates -- who the New York Times claims are "homeless" and who were dubbed by Arizona's Green Party as "sham" candidates -- can remain on the November ballot as the party's nominees for several offices, a federal judge ruled.
This despite complaints that they're being used by Republicans to lure liberal voters away from voting for Democrats.
U.S. District Court Judge David G. Campbell ruled last night that the nine candidates in question can remain on the ballot as Green Party candidates for the November election.
The ruling allows elections officials to begin printing ballots, which tight deadlines require them to do promptly in order to get ballots to overseas voters and members of the military stationed in other countries.
Green and Democratic party officials charge Republicans with taking advantage of a loophole in Arizona election law that allows candidates to become Green Party nominees with a single write-in vote.
It's been reported that the nine candidates switched party affiliation to the Green Party just days before the deadline to file as write-in candidates.
Green Party officials claim the candidates are ineligible because they violate the party's right to be associated with members who agree with its platform.
The ruling is likely to face further court challenges and the Arizona Democratic Party already has filed a similar suit in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Rules are rules, however, and the law -- as loophole-y as it may be -- is the law. Sounds like a pretty standard case of "don't hate the playa, hate the game."