On February 10, the 11th circuit ruled 3-0 that it is constitutional for Alabama to require more signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House than for an independent presidential candidate. Here is the opinion, which is only 5 pages.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1979 and again in 1992 that states cannot require more signatures to get on the ballot for an office in just part of the state, than in the entire state. The 11th circuit did not even mention the 1992 precedent, Norman v Reed. The 11th circuit merely repeated the U.S. District Court’s earlier assertion that the 1979 precedent only applies when the comparison is between a statewide office and a municipal office. That assertion is contradicted by the 1992 precedent, Norman v Reed, the unmentioned precedent.

Norman v Reed said that when ballot access laws are discriminatory, they can only be upheld if there is a compelling reason for those laws to exist. The 11th circuit, in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court, did not mention the compelling interest test. The 11th circuit depends on a precedent, Swanson v Worley, which upheld Alabama’s law requiring more signatures for independent candidates for one type of statewide office, relative to another statewide office. The Swanson case did not apply the compelling interest test.

Alabama is the only state in which independent candidates for U.S. House ever need more signatures than independent candidates for president. In the recent past, Iowa had required more signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House than an independent candidate for president, but the Iowa law was overturned in federal court in 1992.

COFOE (the Coalition for Free & Open Elections) had been sponsoring this lawsuit. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will cost several thousand dollars. COFOE appreciated the people who have already donated toward this case, and hopes that additional donations will be sent. Checks to COFOE can be mailed to P.O. Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147.