On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that it had decided not to hear Coffield v Kemp, 10-596. This is the case from Georgia that challenges the state’s procedures to get on the ballot as an independent or minor party candidate for U.S. House of Representatives. The state requires a petition signed by 5% of the registered voters. The state also requires that all petition sheets be notarized, that all petitions be collected on over-size paper, and forbids the petition drive to begin until six months before the July petition deadline. Also, candidates must pay a filing fee of 3% of the annual salary, or approximately $5,000. These hurdles, taken together, have existed since 1964 and no one has ever overcome them. An independent had complied with the 5% petition in 1964, before new restrictions passed in 1964 had taken effect. Before the 1964 restrictions passed, the petitions weren’t due until October and were not checked, and did not need to be notarized.
The Coalition for Free and Open Elections (COFOE), the Center for Competitive Democracy, and Free & Equal, had jointly filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the case. Faye Coffield, who filed the case, was an independent candidate for U.S. House in 2008 in Georgia’s 4th district. Because she was unable to get on the ballot, the incumbent, Hank Johnson, a Democrat, was the only name on the ballot that year, in both the Democratic primary and the general election.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not agreed to hear a ballot access case brought by a minor party or independent candidate since 1991, when it accepted Norman v Reed, an Illinois case won by the Harold Washington Party.
A mere 43 years of screwed up ballot access cases – 1968-2011 — due to MORON lawyers.
Separate is NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
Each election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election — except perhaps the number of actual Voters at the prior election in the office area involved.
Equal nominating petitions for all candidates for the same office in the same area.
What ballot access lawyer has ANY constitutional law brain cells or are they ALL retarded MORONS ???
along with — P.R. and App.V. – before it is too late.
Pingback: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Georgia Ballot Access Case « Free And Equal
This is very disappointing.
Is there another case on the horizon that might catch their attention?
There are two other cases sitting in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that were filed by minor parties or independent candidates. One is the Hawaii ballot access filed by Ralph Nader, and challenges the policy that requires six times more signatures for an independent presidential candidate than for an entire new qualified party with its own primary. The other is the Connecticut case that challenges the public funding law, which is highly discriminatory against independent candidates and the nominees of newly qualifying political parties. It requires them to submit a petition of 20% of the last vote cast, and raise lots of qualifying small contributions, to get full public funding. Nominees of parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last election can get public funding with no petition at all, just by raising the required number of small donations.
# 4 ANY lawyers capable of putting Brown v. Bd of Ed in ANY ballot access or funding case brief ???
Principled Georgia voters should continue to keep track of and support those candidates who have established an understanding of the legitimate representative threat that inappropriate ballot access laws present and demonstrate sincere intent to reform those. Jeff Anderson, the 2010 Independent candidate in Georgia CD11 was on WSB TV (ABC channel 2 in Atlanta) on January 19 discussing the Supreme Court case. He is actively considering future election plans and has stated his definite inclusion of ballot reform in his public message and service platform.
Wake up folks — the gerrymander Donkey/Elephant party hacks are controlling about 40 (repeat 40) percent of the GDP in the U.S.A.)
ALL 3rd parties and independents are direct threats to the regimes — to be crushed — legally of course.
— except in certain marginal gerrymander areas — when the D/E party hacks want to divide and conquer the E/D gang.
P.R. and App.V.