There are at least five states in which U.S. District Courts could at any time issue an opinion on the constitutionality of a ballot access law.
In Alabama, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson will decide Hall v Bennett. The issue is whether the state’s severe 3% petition requirement for independent candidates must be eased when special elections are called, given that the time frame to collect signatures in a special election is so much shorter than in a regular election.
In Illinois, U.S. District Court Judge Andrea Wood will decide Libertarian Party of Illinois v Illinois State Board of Elections. The issue is the state’s law that requires newly-qualifying parties to submit a full slate of candidates. No other state has ever had such a law, and even Illinois doesn’t force already-established parties to run a full slate. The law has existed since 1935.
In Missouri, U.S. District Court Judge Ronnie White will decide if St. Louis County can constitutionally limit special elections for County Council to only the two parties that polled the biggest vote for Governor in the last election. The case is Constitution Party of Missouri v St. Louis County.
In New Mexico, U.S. District Court Judge Martha Vazquez will decide Parker v Duran. The issue is whether New Mexico can require independent candidates to submit a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, when the petition for minor parties to get on the ballot for themselves is only one-half of 1%, and the minor party nominee petition is 1%.
In Ohio, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson will decide Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted. The issue is whether the state’s new procedures for minor parties, passed in late 2013, are consistent with the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Constitution appears to require that all parties nominate by primary, and yet the new law says newly-qualifying parties should nominate by convention. There are other issues in the case also. The Secretary of State has taken the position that the Libertarian Party is not ballot-qualified for the local partisan elections of 2015. Here is a news story about that.
There are constitutional ballot access cases pending in other states as well, but the cases listed above seem to be the only ones that are fully briefed. Cases not ready for a decision (either from a trial court or a higher court) are pending in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.
Regardless of ALL of the MORON lawyers and courts since Williams v. Rhodes in 1968 —
1. Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with anything since the formation of the Universe – except the number of actual voters in the prior general election in the area involved.
2. Separate is NOT equal. Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954.
3. Thus EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area.
Much too difficult for the above MORON lawyers and courts to understand ??? Duh.
If there is a stay pending decision in the OH case, he should sue Tusc., then file with District alerting them. If there’s no stay, he’s off pending decision. Earl didn’t have the payee listed, so he was off. The suit should be on different grounds than Earl.
Article 5, Section 7 says: “All nominations for elective state, district, county and municipal offices shall be made at direct primary elections or by petition as provided by law, …”
You appear to parse this as a compound sentence:
“All nominations for elective state, district, county and municipal offices shall be made at direct primary elections”
or
“by petition”
And then interpolate that as “oh they simply forgot to mention that the persons petitioning were not being ‘nominated’
But it is the object that is compound:
“All nominations for elective state, district, county and municipal offices shall be made:
(a) at direct primary elections; or
(b) by petition;
as provided by law, …”
Under Ohio’s new law candidates may petition to appear on the general election ballot, and minor party’s _may_ endorse one of them, and have that endorsement appear on the general election ball.
“Under Ohio’s new law candidates may petition to appear on the general election ballot, and minor party’s _may_ endorse one of them, and have that endorsement appear on the general election ball.”
Jim: Which is easier to get candidate’s name on ballot? Independent to petition and receive endorsement from minor party, or minor party to obtain ballot position and nominate candidates?
For a new party, candidates petition separately from the party petition. The new party has the option to accept them as the nominee of the party.
In Texas, a perennial candidate who is apparently pursuing a personal grudge, had filed as a Libertarian candidate. The party nominating convention declined to nominate her, even though she was the only declared candidate.
In Ohio, the individual nominating candidate petition for new parties is quite modest, so it conceivable that a candidate could try to sneak on the general election ballot. So the law protects the political association rights of the new party.
Ohio has an early primary. It used to be that all parties had to nominate by primary, and so party qualification had to happen in the winter. About a decade ago, a circuit court in a split 2-1 decision ruled that the combination of number of signatures and timing was unconstitutional. In effect, it said that the barrier was too high, but gave no indication of what would be not too high.
This left Ohio in the position of trial and error as they tried to reduce the barriers, only to be blocked by a federal court. Once the Ohio Secretary of State tried to change the law by administrative fiat. Not only was that unconstitutional, the court also ruled on the regulations she tried to impose. The last attempt, the federal judge ridiculed Ohio because they left time in their schedule to mail ballots overseas as required by federal law.
Finally, Ohio came up with the new system. It moves the qualification deadline for new parties to July. It reduced the qualification standard, and reduced the threshold to remain qualified.
To be an ordinary independent candidate requires 5000 signatures statewide.
To qualify a new party requires 1% of the gubernatorial/presidential vote. So currently it is just over 30,000 statewide. But to be a candidate of the new party requires 50 signatures for statewide office, 5 for other office.
I don’t know how the Court could not agree that the number of signatures should be reduced in Alabama for a special election. But I doubt the Court will “legislate” that number. It will just say such is “unconstitutional” and then we’ll have to fight with the Alabama Legislature on just exactly how many signatures it will be.
I hope, if Senator Cam Ward introduces his bill, that he will amend it (assuming the Court rules as I believe they should) to include the reduced number of signatures.
Perhaps that will give the bill an “edge” and may pass.
Richard, do you know if Senator Ward did introduce his bill? I haven’t even bothered to check to see.
Richard:
Just had an email exchange with Senator Ward. He said he had the bill drafted, but had not yet introduced it.