Home General U.S. District Court in North Carolina Upholds 4% Petition Requirement for Independent Candidates for U.S. House
formats

U.S. District Court in North Carolina Upholds 4% Petition Requirement for Independent Candidates for U.S. House

Published on August 24, 2010, by in General.

On August 24, U.S. District Court Judge Graham C. Mullen, a Bush Sr. appointee, upheld North Carolina’s petition requirement for independent candidates for U.S. House.  The law required a petition signed by 4% of the registered voters of the district.  No independent candidate for U.S. House has ever appeared on a government-printed ballot in North Carolina, and such ballots have been in existence since 1901.  The case is Greene v Bartlett, 5:08-cv-088.  Here is the decision.

The judge noted that this year, the Service Employees International Union did succeed in qualifying an independent candidate for U.S. House in North Carolina.  However, that candidate, Wendall Fant, will not appear on the ballot, even though enough valid signatures were obtained, because he didn’t want to be a candidate, and he withdrew.

The decision does say, “It is clear that North Carolina’s election laws place severe restrictions upon unaffiliated candidates.  It is undisputed under the Storer test that unaffiliated candidates do not regularly qualify for the general election ballot in North Carolina.”   But it says that because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s 5% petition requirement in 1971 in Jenness v Fortson, and because the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to mention Jenness in some recent election law decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court must still believe in Jenness.

The plaintiff has not yet decided whether to appeal to the 4th circuit.

3 Responses

  1. Demo Rep

    Williams 1968 – Jenness 1971

    Both done by MORON ballot access lawyers — unable to detect that —

    Separate is NOT equal
    Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954

    Thus – a mere 42 years of nonstop screwed up ballot access cases by mini-armies of MORON lawyers (so-called) — along with the super-MORON party hack SCOTUS folks.

  2. Richard

    Actually, I was at the oral argument in Jenness v Fortson, and the attorneys for Linda Jenness argued the same way that Demo Rep argues. They argued that all petition requirements to get on the ballot in Georgia for independent and minor party candidates, no matter how few signatures might ever be required, would be unconstitutional, given that Democrats and Republicans in Georgia don’t need any signatures to get on their own party’s primary ballots.

    So, the argument about equality didn’t work. I have also read the briefs from both sides in Jenness v Fortson, and I have the transcript of the oral argument and I have re-read it on occasion. I doubt Demo Rep has read any of those things.

  3. Demo Rep

    #2 Demo Rep does not waste any time any more on party hack SCOTUS stuff in the EVIL past.

    Sooooo — the New Age party hack SCOTUS love having UN-equal ballot access laws ???

    Where is ANY mention of Brown v. Bd of Ed in ANY of the Williams and Jenness paper work / arguments / hearings ???

    In any case — so what — the SCOTUS folks are EVIL MORON appointed party hacks — following the EVIL party lines of the party hack top Donkeys/Elephants — since at least 1861.

    What else is new and different since the Lincoln party hack appointed SCOTUS folks during the Civil War — the beginning of having ALL SCOTUS party hacks ???

    Why does BAN have ANY respect for the MORON party hack opinions of the party hack Supremes — in ballot access cases or any other *political* cases ???

    The SCOTUS party hack stuff is like reviewing slavery cases in the party hack courts in the slave regimes before the Civil War — a TOTAL waste of time and effort.

    Equal nominating petitions.

    P.R. and App.V. — to END the EVIL rot in U.S.A. politics.

    Let the EVIL past rot — slavery, divine right of kings, etc.

    How many times have one group of party hack Supremes over-ruled the opinions of earlier party hack Supremes ???

    See part 48 of the Constitution Annotated —

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html

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>

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus