U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Libertarian-Green Case over Discriminatory Voter Registration Forms

On January 11, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Arizona Libertarian Party v Bennett, 15-598. The lower courts had upheld the Arizona law that says only the names of the two largest parties should be printed on voter registration forms. If a voter wants to register any other way, the voter must write in the name of that party, even if it is ballot-qualified and has its own primary. UPDATE: see this story.


Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Libertarian-Green Case over Discriminatory Voter Registration Forms — 9 Comments

  1. The SCOTUS hacks do not want any REAL competition for the D/R oligarchs.

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  2. More evidence that the SCOTUS is most certainly not non-partisan. Maybe the Arizona Green and Libertarian Parties should consider holding a non-violent protest outside of the state legislature to try to attract some media attention and thus have some uncomfortable questions directed at the state government about whether they’ve subverted democracy for partisan gain. It would be better than doing nothing at least.

  3. Heck, we ought to apply that nationally at the CPD debates if the two lawsuits fail. They’ll have trouble disappearing hundreds/thousands of people the same way they did Jill Stein for a few hours in 2012.

  4. Bob, yes, it is now a 9th circuit precedent. But a new case on the same subject might be able to overcome that precedent, by bringing in evidence that was not brought in for the case that just ended. I imagine the plaintiffs would need to find individuals who would testify that they wanted to register Green or Libertarian, but when they filled out the form they didn’t do that because they didn’t realize it is an option. Or the plaintiffs could bring in evidence from California, on the huge change brought about in California when registration forms listing the qualified parties came into existence in 1976. Before 1976 the only way to register was to find a deputy registrar of voters, and the deputy could not advise the applicant about party choice, and the old form didn’t mention the names of the qualified parties. Peace & Freedom Party registration was down to only 12,000 after the November 1974 election. But four years after the new postcard registration form was out, PFP was at 31,407 registered members. Evidence like that would probably win the case.

  5. Impeach and replace the SCOTUS too! Then try them for treason. They certainly don’t serve the people of America. They clearly have no respect or understanding of our history, culture and Constitution. Just more shameless Globalist shills…

  6. “… a new case on the same subject might be able to overcome that precedent …” Emphasis on the word “might”. I don’t believe that court decisions like are influenced much by evidence or lack of evidence. In fact, I’m not sure that this one even should be influenced by evidence. To me, the constitutional question is purely conceptual. Suppose Arizona had printed registration forms with only one party name plus a blank space for all the other parties. Would the courts find that acceptable? I didn’t think so. Then why is it acceptable to list only two parties — or any other number less than the number of ballot qualified parties? No amount of evidence can settle the question when posed in this way.

  7. If someone brought a successful challenge to a similar regulation in another circuit, then the U.S. Supreme Court would almost definitely hear the case. But I assume no other state has the same law since the stupidest people in the United States live in Arizona. (The stupidest people in Arizona live in Apache Junction.)

Leave a Reply

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