Home General Tennessee Asks Sixth Circuit to Remove Green and Constitution Parties from 2012 Ballot
formats

Tennessee Asks Sixth Circuit to Remove Green and Constitution Parties from 2012 Ballot

Published on April 7, 2012, by in General.

On April 2, the Tennessee Secretary of State asked the 6th circuit to reverse the U.S. District Court and remove the Green Party and the Constitution Party from the 2012 ballot. The U.S. District Court had put them both on the ballot on February 3, on the basis that the ballot access law for newly-qualifying parties is unconstitutional and that these two plaintiff political parties had shown they have a modicum of support. Here is the state’s 29-page brief.

The state argues that it is rare for courts to place minor parties on the ballot when they don’t submit enough valid signatures, and mentions only one instance: the 2008 example when a U.S. District Court in Ohio put the Libertarian Party on the ballot. However, there have been many more instances when a court ordered a minor party onto a ballot even though that minor party had not collected enough signatures, and sometimes not any signatures. Examples are:

Arkansas: the Reform Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1996 even though it needed 21,505 valid signatures and submitted only 17,262 valid signatures. The party won the case because the deadline was too early. Citizens to Establish a Reform Party v Priest.

Hawaii: the Peoples Party was ordered onto the ballot for the 1974 election even though it needed 3,002 valid signatures and the party didn’t submit any for that election. The party won the case because the state had an unconstitutional county distribution requirement. Peoples Party v Ariyoshi.

Idaho: the Populist Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1984 even though it needed 8,749 valid signatures and only submitted 372. The party won the case because the May 30 petition deadline was too early, and the state had an unconstitutional county distribution requirement. Populist Party v Evans.

Kansas: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1982 even though it needed 22,088 valid signatures and submitted no signatures. The party won the case because old qualified parties had obtained their status without any petition, and had been permitted by the state to remain on. Reagan v State.

Nebraska: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1976 even though it needed 4,514 valid signatures and submitted only 2,900. The party won the case because the deadline for a new party to qualify was too early. MacBride v Exon.

Nevada: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1986 even though it needed 13,531 valid signatures and submitted only 5,000. The party won the case because the deadline was too early. Libertarian Party of Nevada v Swackhamer.

Ohio: the Socialist Labor Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1970 even though it needed 202,114 valid signatures and did not submit any. The party won the case because the number of signatures was too high. Socialist Labor Party v Rhodes.

Ohio(2): the Socialist Party was ordered onto the ballot in 2008 even though it needed 20,114 valid signatures and did not submit any on a party petition, although it collected 2,000 on an independent presidential petition. The party won the case because the deadline was too early. Moore v Brunner.

Oklahoma: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1984 even though it needed 44,157 valid signatures and only submitted 28,894. The party won the case because the law only allowed 90 days to collect the signatures. Libertarian Party of Oklahoma v Oklahoma State Election Board.

West Virginia: the Green Party was ordered onto the ballot in 2000 even though it needed 12,730 valid signatures and only submitted 7,111. The party won the case because the legislature had doubled the petition requirement in 1999 and should not have put the new law into effect until after the 2000 election was over, and also because the state unconstitutionally banned out-of-state circulators.

Wyoming: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1984 even though it needed 8,000 valid signatures and only submitted 3,735. The party won the case because the petitioning period of only two months was too short.

17 Responses

  1. Right now the Libertarian and Green Parties are like two ant colonies that are fighting, locked in mortal combat to death, and if we unite soon we can start preparing a battle plan for the anteater that is fast approaching.

    The 8th USA Parliament is working to make that unity happen, and we need to do that ASAP in order to start mobilizing our team.

    Please feel free to call or email if/when you have some ideas on
    how to mobilize and work together. Currently, we’re going too slow, we’re too small and we’re being decimated.

    –James Ogle for president
    (415) 686-1996
    info@allpartysystem.org
    http://www.usparliament.org/google2012.php

  2. Casual Bystander

    I thought you said you were banned from posting a BAN.

  3. Richard Winger

    #1, that is a silly statement. Both those parties are long-term members of COFOE. Those two parties have jointly filed constitutional election law lawsuits in Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and are about to do so in Virginia.

  4. Dominik

    Richard you should file an Amicus Brief in the Court with this info.

  5. #4, better than that, the attorney for the Green and Constitution Parties knows this information and he can, if he wishes, include it in his response brief.

  6. ETJB

    Tenn has some sort of ‘interesting’ ballot access rule where its like 25 signatures for an Independent candidate, but then incredibly difficult for a new or minor party candidate.

    If the argument is proving that candidate x has a ‘modicum’ of voter support/interest, I am not entirely sure that their is a rational argument to be made for requiring a candidate to collect more signatures because he has a party label next to his name on the ballot versus an Independent/No Party label next to his name.

  7. @2 Yes, Hon Richard Winger is allowing some of my posts and not others from time to time, yet he allows posts which degrade and slander.

    As far a COFOE is concerned, they are not a legitimately elected group, elected under pure proportional representation with votes cast as proof.

    The 8th USA Parliament has been using the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system for 17 consecutive years, the Hagenbach-Bischoff method. That’s where 1000 seats are elected with 1/1001ths (or .999%) plus one vote each, and every elected member of parliament (MP) has the liberty to self-categorize without penalty.

    If we can unite the Green and Libertarian Parties to be working as a unit of one, then we can start doing things as a coordinated force. We will also unite other parties and independents.

    My posts are currently being deleted today from http://www.greenpartywatch.org/ http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/

  8. @2 Yes, Hon Richard Winger is allowing some of my posts and not others from time to time, yet he allows other people’s posts which degrade and slander.

    As far a COFOE is concerned, they are not a legitimately elected group, elected under pure proportional representation with votes cast as proof.

    The 8th USA Parliament has been using the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system for 17 consecutive years, the Hagenbach-Bischoff method. That’s where 1000 seats are elected with 1/1001ths (or .999%) plus one vote each, and every elected member of parliament (MP) has the liberty to self-categorize without penalty.

    If we can unite the Green and Libertarian Parties to be working as a unit of one, then we can start doing things as a coordinated force. We would then also unite other parties and independents.

    My posts are currently being deleted today from http://www.greenpartywatch.org/ http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/

  9. Richard Winger

    #7, #8, I have never disallowed any of your posts.

  10. Andy

    “ETJB Says:
    April 7th, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Tenn has some sort of ‘interesting’ ballot access rule where its like 25 signatures for an Independent candidate, but then incredibly difficult for a new or minor party candidate.”

    It’s actually 275 valid signatures for an independent Presidential candidate now.

  11. Jim Riley

    #10, I think that is 25 signatures per presidential elector.

    Tennessee should just go ahead and implement Top 2.

  12. I am running for president so I can try to help elect one of six women, Hon Queen Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] is one of them, as the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party with my name James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], a registered Libertarian as vice president.

    I am running for president as a Libertarian to promote the unity “Green Tea/Free Parliamentary” ticket.

    I spoke for about 10 minutes about this project at the 2007 state Libertarian Party convention in San Ramoan, CA when I ran for state chair against current chair Hon Kevin Takenaga who is not for this, and I also spoke for about five minutes at the state Libertarian Party in a six-way presidential straw poll at the state Libertarian Party convention last month in Ventura, CA when I vied against five other Ls who are not for this.

    We’re actually only 582 nominees and we’re trying to reach 1000 this year and so we’re trying to expand at the national Libertarian Party convention next month before our election ends on August 5th, 2012.

    If anyone likes this, we can elect your name to the Cabinet at the #1 spot and most likely in the Ministry that interests you. We use the ranked choice consensus voting system that I’ve innovated within each Ministry:
    http://usparliament.org/cab-1.php

    We also use the ranked choice consensus voting system when we elect our platform. To elect the multiple plank items to be considered, we use the direct democracy (DD) voting system.

    Thank you very much for your consideration, hope you like it. Hon MP Richard Winger [Libertarian] is on our team, and he’s one of our best team players.

    Again, thank you very very much for the free speech opportunity, and your time and consideration.

    Very Truly Yours,

    –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Volunteer Vote Counter
    (415) 686-1996

    Join the Frees,
    Opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

  13. @2 Yes, Hon Richard Winger is allowing some of my posts and not others from time to time, yet he allows other people’s posts which degrade and slander.

    As far a COFOE is concerned, they are not a legitimately elected group, elected under pure proportional representation with votes cast as proof.

    The 8th USA Parliament has been using the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system for 17 consecutive years, the Hagenbach-Bischoff method. That’s where 1000 seats are elected with 1/1001ths (or .999%) plus one vote each, and every elected member of parliament (MP) has the liberty to self-categorize without penalty.

    If we can unite the Green and Libertarian Parties to be working as a unit of one, then we can start doing things as a coordinated force. We will also unite other parties and independents.

    My posts are currently being deleted today from http://www.greenpartywatch.org/ http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/

  14. Demo Rep

    What happened to the equal in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 ???

    OR — How come mini-ARMIES of MORON lawyers and lower judges / SCOTUS justices are brain dead EVIL ignorant about —

    Separate is NOT equal.
    Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 ???

    Each election is N-E-W.

    Way too difficult for MORONS to detect ???

  15. […] District Court and remove the Green Party and the Constitution Party from the 2012 ballot. The U.S. Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Tennessee Asks Sixth Circuit to Remove Green and Constitution … […]

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