On March 20, a U.S. District Court refused to reconsider its decision of July 17, 2012 in Green Party of Georgia v State of Georgia, northern district, 1:12cv-1822. The case had been filed by the Green Party and the Constitution Party, and it alleged that Georgia’s petition requirement for presidential candidates to get on the November ballot is too strict.
The reconsideration order is 14 pages, and is longer and more carefully written than the original decision, which had only been four pages. The main point of the reconsideration request had been that the judge had not taken into consideration the point, endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit (Georgia is in the Eleventh Circuit), that states must go easier on presidential ballot access than on access for other office. The reconsideration order says that the Eleventh Circuit case on this point, Bergland v Harris, cannot be considered in this current lawsuit because the original brief had not mentioned it. The reconsideration order admits that the original brief did discuss Anderson v Celebrezze, but the reconsideration order simply won’t discuss the part of Anderson v Celebrezze that says that, and instead quotes a different part of Anderson v Celebrezze which is just general boiler plate acknowledging that states can have ballot access requirements. It is likely the case will be appealed.