A U.S. District Court in the western district of North Carolina will hear Brody v North Carolina State Board of Elections, 3:10-cv-383, on April 28. This is the case in which the plaintiff-candidate, Mark Brody, argues that he should have been permitted to appear on the 2010 ballot as an independent candidate for state house, with no petition. He had successfully petitioned in 2008 as an independent candidate for the same seat, and had polled 30.6% of the vote.
The state told him he needed 2,367 valid signatures to appear on the 2010 ballot. He argues that this is illogical, because in 2008 in the same district and with the same label, he had received 9,182 votes. He maintains that the petition as applied to him is redundant because he has already showed that he has the needed voter support to run again. The state will argue that the case is moot and that it should be dismissed.
The other North Carolina ballot access case that concerns independent candidates, Greene v North Carolina Board of Elections, is pending in the 4th circuit. No hearing date has been set. The Greene case argues that the 4% (of the number of registered voters) petition requirement is unconstitutional because it has never been used by a candidate for U.S. House.
Brody – every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with the prior election — except perhaps the number of actual voters in the election area involved.
Greene – Separate is NOT equal — in ALL States 24/7 — regardless of brain dead ballot access lawyers.
Pingback: Ballot Access News: Hearing Set in North Carolina Ballot Access Case | Free the Vote North Carolina
In responcse to Demo Rep: I would agree with you except for one major problem – you don’t understand the structure of the NC system. My case is not about getting any special privleges for me but getting the same ones given to the party candidates. If your logic was true then everyone running, regardless of affiliation, would have to get petition signatures every time they run. The parties have made special rules just for them to avoid these costly petition drives but have refused to allow those rules to apply to others. That’s my argument – very simple.