Home Uncategorized Update on Ohio Minor Party Ballot Access Lawsuit
formats

Update on Ohio Minor Party Ballot Access Lawsuit

As noted in an earlier post, on Friday, January 10, 2014, the government of Ohio appealed the January 7 order that kept Ohio’s minor parties on the ballot for the 2014 election. When Ohio filed its notice of appeal, it also asked that the Sixth Circuit expedite the appeal. The state proposed a briefing schedule that would be complete by January 24.

In response, the minor parties pointed out that the Ohio government did not request a stay of the January 7 order. If the government had requested a stay, either the U.S. District Court or the Sixth Circuit would have responded very quickly, and would either have denied the stay, or granted it. But because no stay was requested, the minor party candidates are now in the uncomfortable position of not knowing whether to finish their ongoing petitions to get on their own party’s primary ballots. If the Sixth Circuit reverses the U.S. District Court, all the minor party primaries would be cancelled, and all the primary petitioning work would have been wasted.

These petitions are not easy; statewide candidates need 500 signatures and voters who voted in another party’s primary in 2012 can’t sign. These primary petitions are due February 5. In 2012, when the four minor parties were entitled to a primary, no U.S. Senate candidate from any of the minor parties was able to obtain the needed 500 signatures (although this was partly because the petitioning period was so short, because the legislature had made a last-minute decision to move the primary from June to March).

The minor party response to the Sixth Circuit therefore asks that the Sixth Circuit not expedite the state’s appeal. But the minor parties request that if the appeal will be expedited, that the briefs all be in by January 17, not January 24, so that the uncertainty will be over that much sooner. In the Sixth Circuit, the case is Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, 14-3030.

5 Responses

  1. Cody Quirk

    I can see the method behind the madness here.

    The State of Ohio is pulling all sorts of tricks to keep the minor parties and their candidates off the ballot.

  2. Demo Rep

    What century will ANY lawyers/judges with ANY brain cells detect that –

    Each election is NEW.
    EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area.
    —–
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  3. DemoRep, in U.S. election law, virtually all states do not adhere to the principle you set forth above. We must work in the existing legal environment. Your principle is a good one but the U.S. does not adhere to it.

  4. Demo Rep

    How about doing a PROPER case using the EQUAL Protection Clause in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 ??? — using some lawyers with BRAIN CELLS – and NOT the MUSH heads since 1968.

    i.e. the LAW — not any *principle*.

    The CRAP cases since 1968 can go forever with the robot party hacks playing games with UNEQUAL dates, percentages, retroactive stuff, etc. etc.

  5. Demo Rep

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

    Hmm.
    1954-1896 = a mere 58 years

    2014-1968 = a mere 46 years.

    How many extremely STUPID ballot access lawyers never heard about the Brown case ???

    History note – Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt was ALSO obviously added to protect the Republicans (and even Democrats) in the ex-rebel States who had remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War.

    ANY ballot access problems for Republican Party candidates in the ex-rebel States after the infamous 1876-1877 Prez machinations ???

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>