Arizona Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Nader v Brewer

On November 13, Arizona filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Nader v Brewer (which is now called Brewer v Nader). The Court hasn’t assigned the case number yet. The issues are (1) whether early June is too early for independent presidential candidate petitions to be due; (2) whether states may make it illegal for out-of-state residents to circulate an independent presidential petition.


Arizona Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Nader v Brewer — 16 Comments

  1. One more chance for non-MORON lawyers to bring up —


    Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954.

    NOT brought up in ballot access cases by the armies of MORON lawyers starting with Williams v. Rhodes in 1968 — a mere 40 years ago.

    Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election — i.e. ALL candidates for the same office in the same area must face EQUAL tests to get on the ballots.

    Way too difficult for MORONS to understand.

  2. Demo Rep,

    As an alternative to the explanation that everyone other than you is a MORON, you might consider that the holding in Brown v. Board is at least somewhat contingent on the specific set of facts in that case. Not every form of discrimination is unconstitutional, you know (of course you do) – just “invidious” classifications like race, etc. Even if you think that’s an incorrect reading of the Constitution, you’d have a hard time convincing a court that Brown v. Board requires the invalidation of a ballot access law on equal protection grounds, given the mountains of precedent holding that states can discriminate between major party, minor party and independent candidates without violating the constitution. Finally, even if you are right, why do you have to be such a jerk about it?

  3. RE: Thornton. Justice Stevens went to some lengths to emphasize that the states may not add or subtract from the ‘qualifications’ clause in the Constitution for elected national officials (President, Senators, Representatives). The requirement of a state petition and all related state restrictions pertaining to that petition could be struck down by applying Thornton consistently to ballot access as a ‘qualification’.

    Gene to Demo Rep: Ditto.

  4. We are several months away from a US Supreme Court decision on whether to take Brewer v Nader. Now that the state has filed a brief, Nader will file a brief in 30 days. Then the state may file a rebuttal if it wishes. Only then would the Court decide whether to take the case.

  5. Thanks for clarifying. Anyway, how many states currently have an earlier deadline for independent and third party candidates? Also, any chance Nader may represent himself in this case or is he allowed to do so?

  6. #4 Periodically the party hack Supremes overrule tons of their own JUNK.

    See the 1938 Erie R.R. case — overruling a mere 98 years of literally *mountains of precedent* in the U.S. Reports claiming that there was some sort of *federal common law* lurking in the U.S.A.

    Was the Equal Protection Clause even enacted to help protect loyal Republican Party folks, black and white, in the ex-slave southern States — i.e. to end *political* discrimination — i.e. one more form of *arbitrary* classifications of folks ??? Duh.

    How many folks on this list have read the Federalist, the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Max Farrand, the Congressional Globe of Dec. 1865- July 1866, etc. etc. ??? Guess what. Some folks have done so and learned something about legal and political history.

    Only jerks and MORONS (especially in the New Age courts) do not know legal and political history — as is shown often in this list by the many peanut gallery blowhard idiot comments — especially by any know-it-all ballot access lawyers on this list — who have been screwing up ballot access cases since 1968 for third party candidates and independents.

  7. Arizona has the 2nd earliest deadline (for presidential independents). Only Texas is earlier.

  8. Well, from I read their are plently of judges — appointed by Democrats and Republican — who had a good and bad record when it comes to ballot isssues rules.

    Also, the qualifications issues, as raised by the USSC made CLEAR that ballot access rules were not really a qualification per se, but a mere regualtory measure.

    I do not really buy that logical, but that USSC seems to.

  9. The US Supreme Court hasn’t spoken on whether severe ballot access laws violate Article One, since that Court put out the term limits decision in 1995.

    The Court did seem to say that they don’t in Storer v Brown in 1974, in a footnote. But that was 21 years before the Court had even decided whether states can or can’t add to the qualifications for Congress.

  10. If a State can’t compel independent candidates to file by June, why can a State compel partisan presidential candidates and delegates to file by December or January? One of the issues in Anderson v. Celebrezze was that voters in States other than Ohio would be harmed by Ohio’s election schedule. But aren’t voters in States other than New Hampshire harmed by New Hampshire’s early primaries?

  11. It is a good thing that Arizona is appealing. It’s June deadline would have been fine at the time of Anderson v. Celebrezze. Anderson filed his Ohio petitions in May, 1980.

    So the Supreme Court can either say that what was important about Anderson was the method of analyzing election laws, even if it results in different conclusions by different courts, and constant litigating and re-litigating of the same issues in slightly different circumstances, or provide some additional guidance.

  12. It’s fairly clear that any ballot access requirements (such as early disclosure of candidacy) for independent, and non-incumbent party candidates that act to “smoke them out as opposition” and work to advantage the incumbent parties’ candidates – and you know who they are. So these unique ballot access requirements do not fall equally on all candidates. These added requirements are special and discriminatory added ‘qualifications’ on a specific class of candidates.

    Perhaps Brewer v Nader will finally corner the Scotus to resolve the logical contradictions in Thornton.

  13. Qualifications to hold an office are NOT the same as ballot access requirements for the office.

    The *LAW* is based on proper classifications.

    If the founder folks in 1776-1789 thought that unequal ballot access stuff would happen, then they would likely have put it in the Constitution to stop the party hacks from playing their standard party hack statutory machinations with the issue.

    How come the party hack Supremes have such great problems in ballot access cases with the EQUAL in the 1868 Equal Protection Clause — added a mere 140 years ago ???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *