“It is probable that no Justice of the US Supreme Court even knew about that declaration of candidacy law.”

You cited as evidence that the majority opinion only quoted 13.50 and 13.51, and not 13.52 in their footnote. But you ignore that Justice Douglas in a footnote to his dissent only quoted 13.50 and yet referred to a provision that is specific to 13.51. We certainly can’t presume that Justice Douglas was not aware of 13.51 simply because he did not include it in his footnote, while referred to its content in his opinion.

So on what basis do you conclude that all justices were probably unaware of 13.52?

While it is true that the declaration discussed in Footnote 10 applies to minor party candidates, it is entirely parallel to equivalent provisions for major party candidates and independent candidates. I do not find it conceivable that all justices were unaware of the entire structure of the qualification procedure.

Note the political chairmen with whom declarations are filed are in turn required to file these with the Secretary of State. The reason that declaration of independent candidates is filed directly with the SoS is because there is no party, and the SoS directly oversees the qualification process, while conventions and parties are conducted by the political parties.

But there is also a public notice aspect of this, since voters may only participate in the nomination process of a single party OR of independent candidates (eg in 2006, Kinky Friedman urged voters to “Save themselves for Kinky” by not voting in a party primary or attending a party convention.

A candidate nominated under this procedure is every much as dependent on the support of the voters who nominated him as is a candidate who is nominated in a primary is dependent on the support of those who voted in the primary.

And compare Footnote 7 of the the majority opinion to Footnote 2 of the Douglas dissent. May we infer that Justice Douglas did not regard Art 13.51 to be a part of the requirements for independent candidates – even though when comparing the Texas requirement to those of Georgia under Jenness, he specifically notes the requirement that signatures be notarized (actually under 13.51 it was the oath taking by the signer that was being notarized).

Furthermore, neither of the two plaintiffs who wanted to be independent candidates complained about that early declaration of candidacy deadline. It is probable that no Justice of the US Supreme Court even knew about that declaration of candidacy law.

The US Supreme Court in American Party of Texas v. White upheld a system where all candidates had to file their declaration at the same time, and independent candidates had to qualify for the general election contemporaneously with party candidates.

You may disagree with the decision of the Arizona legislature, but in can hardly be said that there is no logical reason for having a consistent deadline.