In 2014, the Utah legislature passed a bill providing that a candidate can get on a primary ballot even if he or she does not have much support at a party caucus. Prior the the 2014 bill’s passage, Utah was the only state in which it was impossible for anyone to get on a partisan primary ballot for any office unless the candidate showed prior support at a party caucus.
The Utah Republican Party doesn’t like the 2014 bill, and will soon file a lawsuit to overturn it, according to this story.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres, issued in 2008, makes it likely that the proposed lawsuit will win. That decision, which was unanimous, affirmed that political parties have a First Amendment right to stop direct nomination of candidates in their own primaries, if that is what they want. The 2008 decision upheld a New York law that says political parties nominate candidates for Supreme Court Justice in party conventions. The lower courts had said there must be a method for candidates to get on a primary directly, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts.
I still say a member of a party has a right to present himself or herself as a candidate for nomination, and should not have to must a certain percentage of support at a caucus or convention to be allowed to do so. This smacks of party bossism. This is one of the major problems of the electoral system in the United States for all parties – major and 3rd parties – too much party bossism.
But still not surprised at the Courts previous decisions.
The electoral process should exist solely for the people and nothing but the people.
I agree, the party system under this law is highly damaging to independent partisans trying to access free speech and ballot access by running for office.
The 9th USA Parliament allows unlimited ballot access and any person may have a word/party by their name they wish. There may be a cap at some point in time, but with 10,000 potential seats, I would think that a cap on names would be arbitrarily set at say, 12,500 names.
These are guidelines set by the “majority coalition” whose interests are in growing the entity.
When you limit ballot access in real elections like this example in Utah, eventually a new bigger majority coalition must form in order to really change the laws.
Some people use the justice system to effect change, but the USA Parliament is designed to create a bigger committee, a bigger majority coalition.
I think you are interpreting ‘Lopez Torres’ too broadly, and forget that the Democratic Party did not challenge the bizarre procedure used for certain judicial nominations, and in fact had intervened in opposition. It was an insurgent who was challenging the Democratic Party.
‘Lopez Torres’ cites ‘American Party of Texas v White’ that it was too plain for argument that a state may require nomination by primary. If a state can prescribe the use of primaries, then surely a state can prescribe how candidates qualify for the primary ballot, such as a petition signed by party members.
New York requires nomination of Supreme Court judges by party convention, with the convention delegates elected in the primary. Lopez Torres was unsuccessful in electing delegates that supported her nomination.
the direct nomination of NYS Supreme Court (trial) judges using independent nominating petitioning was raised at SCOTUS as an amicus — using unconstitutionally districted assembly districts