Home General Faye Coffield Will Appeal Georgia Ballot Access Case to U.S. Supreme Court
formats

Faye Coffield Will Appeal Georgia Ballot Access Case to U.S. Supreme Court

Published on August 11, 2010, by in General.

Faye Coffield, who recently lost her ballot case case in the 11th circuit, has decided to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review.  The “question presented” (every cert petition begins with a single sentence, telling the Court the “question presented”) may be,  “Does the U.S. Constitution protect the ability of minor party and independent candidates to run for the U.S. House of Representatives?””  Georgia has kept all minor party and independent candidates off the ballot for U.S. House, in regularly-scheduled elections, since 1964.

Georgia has less stringent procedures for special elections.  In the context above, “regularly-scheduled” means an election held in the first week of November in even-numbered years.

Billy McKinney, Cynthia McKinney’s father, did appear on a Georgia ballot in 1982 for U.S. House of Representatives, but his election was not held on the normal federal election day, and he was not required to comply with the requirements that exist in regularly-scheduled elections.

The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) has been helping pay the expenses of the Coffield case so far, and the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will probably cost $2,000.  Donations to COFOE for this purpose are needed very badly.  Checks can be made out to COFOE and sent to PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147.  People who contribute at least $25 receive a free subscription to Ballot Access News for a year.

The only other states that have had a Democratic-Republican ballot monopoly in U.S. House elections for a period as long as Georgia have been Louisiana (1918-1970), Florida (1926-1972), and North Carolina  (1902-1946).  Except for Georgia, all states have had minor party or independent candidates, or both, on the ballot for U.S. House of Representatives this decade.

5 Responses

  1. Demo Rep

    WRONG question in the cert —

    should be —

    Does the U.S. Constitution permit the States to have separate and unequal ballot access laws in violation of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ???

    Get a lawyer with SOME BRAINS — otherwise — one more lost case — now in the hundreds / thousands since 1968.

  2. Richard

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in American Party of Texas v White, in 1974, that the U.S. Constitution permits Texas to give primaries only to parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last election, and to provide that all other parties nominate by convention. The decision on that point was unanimous.

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Jenness v Fortson, in 1971, that the U.S. Constitution permits Georgia to give automatic ballot status only to parties that had polled 20% of the vote in the last election for Governor, or for president in the entire U.S. That was also unanimous.

  3. If Utah was under the 20% rule, wouldn’t the Democrats be off the ballot?

  4. No, because Democrats get more than 20% of the vote for president in the entire nation.

  5. Demo Rep

    #2 The party hack SCOTUS folks are always unanimous — in being party hacks.

    What genius lawyer has ANY brains calling for the over-ruling of ALL *modern* ballot access cases starting with Williams v. Rhodes 1968 ???

    1896-1954 separate is equal (racist stuff in civil rights) — OVER-RULED in Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954.

    How about 1968-2010 separate is equal (for ballot access) – to be OVER-RULED in 2010-2011 in the Coffield case ???

    I.E. STOP having ANY respect for ANY party hack SCOTUS case that is unequal, irrrational and/or full of party hack stuff — i.e. too many such cases to count.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>