Judge Calabria’s partial dissent in this ruling is a positive step in the right direction.

Kai Schwandes
North Carolina
Member Green National Committee

In Texas, party affiliation only applies to the nominating process in even numbered years, and Texas has non-partisan local elections. Parties do not nominate candidates for special elections. So even if a party does not maintain its qualified status, it can qualify before the next time that it is relevant.

The above document is Judge Calabria’s partial dissent in this ruling. Very interesting reading. I agree the state should not infringe upon the rights of its voters.

Their decision does not state that the Supreme Court upheld all of Texas’s ballot access laws.

In fact they (the NC Court of Appeals) do not even characterize the meaning of American Party of Texas v. White, but rather characterize the decision of the Fourth Circuit in McLaughlin 65 F.3d which stated, “similarly, in American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974), the Court upheld a complicated Texas ballot access scheme that, in much-simplified essence, permitted political parties to gain initial access to the ballot by securing the signatures of persons numbering 1% of the total votes cast in the prior gubernatorial election, but required such parties to poll at least 2% of the votes cast in the gubernatorial election to retain their ballot access.”

It would have been totally extraneous and irrelevant to mention what the Supreme Court had ruled with regard to the absentee ballots, or certain procedural matters with regard to petitions, or the qualification standards for independent presidential candidates.

Can McLaughlin be interpreted in any other way than to mean, “The Supreme Court in American Party of Texas v. White upheld Texas percentage standards roughly equivalent to those in North Carolina.”?

The NC Court of Appeals is also referring to McLaughlin with regard to local parties. It appears that the 4th Circuit may not have fully understood the Texas law with regard to countywide parties in Texas – but see footnote 10 of McLaughlin.

But given that statewide parties may also nominate county and precinct officers, it is not as if statewide and countywide parties operate in separate domains. The elections where they are relevant occur at the same time, and participation in the nominating activities of a countywide party precludes participation in the activities of a statewide party and vice versa.

How is my note misleading? I stated that attendance counts from precinct conventions could be supplemented by petition. Besides why wouldn’t a political party organizing to make nominations, not prefer that voters attend the conventions where the nominations are made. It is not like those voters would be doing anything else such as voting in the primary or attending a Libertarian or Green party convention.

The only part of the decision that overturned Texas’s law was where a party that had gained ballot access was not included on all the ballots. That is more than a little irrelevant to the North Carolina case.

#6 is misleading because it implies that county parties need a big attendance at meetings. They do not.