The Pennsylvania ballot access case, Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Cortes, 10-3205, will be decided by these three judges: (1) Jane Roth, a Bush Sr. appointee from Delaware; (2) Maryanne Trump Barry, a Clinton appointee from New Jersey; (3) Michael Chagares, a Bush Jr. appointee now working in New Jersey, although he has Pennsylvania roots.
Judge Roth has had election law cases involving minor parties in the past. She wrote the decision in Patriot Party of Allegheny County v Allegheny County Elections Department in 1996, ruling that if Pennsylvania lets the Democratic and Republican Parties jointly nominate candidates for partisan School Board races, the state must let minor parties also use fusion. The state was granted a rehearing en banc, but the en banc panel reaffirmed the original decision. The en banc opinion was released in 1999, and by then the case was re-named Reform Party of Allegheny County v Allegheny County Elections Department. Judge Roth wrote the 1999 decision as well as the 1996 decision. Judge Roth also wrote the opinion in Belitskus v Pizzingrilli, striking down Pennsylvania’s mandatory candidate filing fees.
However, in 2006, Judge Roth ruled against Pennsylvania’s minor parties in Rogers v Cortes, the lawsuit in which the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties argued that since they had each polled enough votes in 2004 to meet the state’s definition of “political party” they should not be forced to submit 67,000 signatures for their statewide nominees. And she ruled against the Constitution Party again, in 2009, in Baldwin v Cortes. That case argued that Pennsylvania’s August 1 petition deadline was illegitimate because the legislature had never passed it. However, the 3rd circuit didn’t agree.
The other two judges in the current case have never had any cases involving ballot access. Judge Barry is somewhat well-known for being the sister of Donald Trump.
The current case challenges Pennsylvania’s system of putting minor party and independent candidates in jeopardy of paying over $100,000 in fees if they submit petitions that don’t have enough valid signatures. It also challenges the state’s refusal to tally the number of write-ins for most write-in candidates, even when those candidates have requested a tallly. And it challenges the law that says parties must submit large numbers of signatures for their nominees unless they have registration membership of 15% of the state total.
The Third Circuit discourages oral arguments in most cases, and will not hold an oral argument in this case.
Separate is NOT equal — even in PA — the State in which the 4 July 1776 DOI was enacted.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
Do the ballot access lawyers in PA have some brain cells ???
“The current case challenges Pennsylvania’s system of putting minor party and independent candidates in jeopardy of paying over $100,000 in fees if they submit petitions that don’t have enough valid signatures.”
The huge fines for losing a signature challenge in PA are simply outrageous. No other state in the country does this.
“It also challenges the state’s refusal to tally the number of write-ins for most write-in candidates, even when those candidates have requested a tallly.”
This is an outrage too. All votes should be counted, including write in votes. I’ve heard that Oklahoma doesn’t count write in votes at all. I’ve heard that Pennsylvania only counts them in certain counties, which is the same thing I’ve heard about Alabama. Write in votes are still votes and they should most definitely be counted.
“And it challenges the law that says parties must submit large numbers of signatures for their nominees unless they have registration membership of 15% of the state total.”
The 15% voter registration requirement to get major party status is unreasonably high, however, it should be pointed out that the Democrats and Republicans in Pennsylvania do have to gather petition signatures to get into the primaries, and their signature requirement is not easy. They don’t need as many signatures as a minor party or independent candidate, but they’ve got much less time to gather their signatures, their petition circulating time happens in the winter when the weather is cold, and only a registered Democrat and can for a Democrat and only a registered Republican can sign for a Republican whereas anyone who is registered to vote regardless of party affiliation of lackthereof can sign a petition for a minor party or independent candidate.
But the Republican and Democratic candidates are not their party’s nominees, when they circulate petitions. Forcing a party’s nominees to submit petitions would be equivalent to forcing a Republican or a Democrat who had already won the primary, to then submit a petition or be left off the November ballot.
If the Libertarian Party or some other minor party were to get major party status in Pennsylvania (which given the 15% voter registartion requirement is extremely difficult), would they have to have a primary to place their candidates on the general election ballot as the Democrats and Republicans do.
The Libertarian Party of Arizona has major party status and they still have to gather petition signatures to place candidates on the ballot, although given that they don’t have as many registered voters as the Democrats and Republicans have, the Arizona election laws don’t require them to gather as many petition signatures the Democrats and Republicans have to get.
The 3rd circuit already ruled in 1986 that if Pennsylvania forced members of minor parties that have their own primary to get as many signatures as members of major parties must get, that would be unconstitutional. That is because the Democratic and Republican Parties have so many more registered voters, and only registered members of parties can sign petitions to get someone on a partisan primary.
The 1986 decision was Consumer Party v Davis.
In response, the legislature simply fixed things so that small qualified parties could no longer nominate by primary any longer. That is why qualified minor parties not only don’t have their own primary, they are treated as though they weren’t ballot-qualified, and must submit large petitions for their nominees.
“Richard Winger Says:
March 3rd, 2011 at 2:15 pm
The 3rd circuit already ruled in 1986 that if Pennsylvania forced members of minor parties that have their own primary to get as many signatures as members of major parties must get, that would be unconstitutional. That is because the Democratic and Republican Parties have so many more registered voters, and only registered members of parties can sign petitions to get someone on a partisan primary.”
Then why don’t they say that they have to get a number of signatures based on their percentage of registered voters, as is done in Arizona?
Also, in Arizona a person who is registered with no party (as in Decline to State a Political Party or an independent) can sign a petitions to put Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians (the 3 major parties in Arizona) on the ballot. So a person petitioning for a spot on the Arizona primary ballot can have either people who are registered with their party or people who are registered as indepedents sign their petitions. This is the same as how it is done for petition for parties that have major party status in Massachusetts.
What EVIL rotted party hack State has the most byzantine ballot access laws on a scale of 0 least to 100 most ???
The absolute worst ballot access law in the nation is the Georgia law for minor party and independent candidates to get on the ballot for U.S. House. In its current form, in existence since 1964, it has never been used.
# 8 Again — Will it take another UNION Army like the Gen. Sherman force in 1864 to liberate GA from its EVIL ANTI-Democracy ballot access laws ???
Think UNION. Remember the about 400,000 UNION Army and Navy DEAD and many thousands of injured to get the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.