On July 2, the Sixth Circuit agreed with a U.S. District Court that two Tennessee ballot access laws are unconstitutional. The Green Party and the Constitution Party had filed a lawsuit on October 10, 2013, against the law on how a party remains on the ballot, and also against the state’s loyalty oath for newly-qualifying political parties. Here is the decision in Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, 14-5435. It is written by Judge R. Guy Cole, a Clinton appointee, and signed by Judges Deborah L. Cook and Helene N. White, Bush Jr. appointees.
The Tennessee vote test for a party to remain on the ballot is that it poll at least 5% for the office at the top of the ballot (president in presidential years, governor in gubernatorial years). The law is discriminatory, because a newly-qualifying party has to meet the vote test in its first year on the ballot. But an already-established party only has to meet the vote test every two elections.
The Sixth Circuit decision strikes down the vote test on Equal Protection grounds. Tennessee could easily repair this law if it said that newly-qualifying parties also don’t need to meet the vote test in their first election, but that they can meet the vote test in either of the party’s first two elections.
The Sixth Circuit also struck down the old Tennessee law that newly-qualifying parties must file a document saying they don’t advocate the violent overthrow of the government. The state had not tried to defend this law, except to argue that it isn’t enforced. However, the decision says the state “has not explicitly disavowed enforcing the oath in the future.” The U.S. Supreme Court had struck all loyalty oaths for parties in 1974, but some states continue to keep them on the books. These states include California, Illinois, Kansas, and Arizona.
The July 2 decision does not resolve the other Tennessee ballot access case, the law that requires a petition of 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote for a party to get on the ballot. That case is still in U.S. District Court, and discovery is proceeding. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link. UPDATE: here is a news story about the decision.
Every election continues to be NEW.
Separate is NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
What century before some genius lawyers and courts detect the preceding ???
I just hope when the Legislature changes the laws, they won’t mess with the easy Independent candidate petition of 25 signatures to run for a state-wide office and only some 750 (25 for each of the presidential electors) for the total number of presidential electors to qualify an Independent candidate for President and Vice-President.
And with this easy access for an Independent, I still cannot understand why their is not a Tennessee Independent Party that will use this easy method of getting their candidates on the ballot.
I know this still allows other Independents to also run for the same offices as the candidates of a Tennessee Independent Party. But a savvy Tennessee Independent Party could use sample paper ballots and highlight the names of their candidates as part of their campaigning strategy.
And, such a Tennessee Independent Party would be free to endorse an Independent candidate, rather than running one who is a member of their party.
We in Alabama would give anything to have a law here similar to that of Tennessee. For if we did, I can assure you there would be a slate of Alabama Independent Party nominees at every election.