On October 25, the Illinois Green Party filed this 22-page request for rehearing in Tripp v Scholz, 16-3469. The request for rehearing does a convincing job of rebutting the decision’s conclusion that states do not need to use evidence to support ballot access restrictions.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
This mess is due to earlier MINDLESS stuff in the brain dead courts with their left/right legislative agendas.
NOOOO regime needs *evidence* for enacting *police power* legislation — aka STATISM for 6,000 plus years.
IE — IF condition W exists at time/place X, THEN party Y may, shall or shall not do Z. [LAW 101]
Again –
ballot access stuff [nominating petitions or filing fees] (along with PR and AppV) must now be in constitutions — since incumbent legislator hacks are now totally corrupt, evil and rotted.
This provided link to the request for enbanc rehearing is fantastic for those most especially who would approach ballot access for the first time. The polite language masks the ongoing mock justice that the established political system reserves for appeals against it.
“If the State’s interest in avoiding ballot overcrowding need not be supported by any empirical or other justifying evidence,then that purported, unsupported interest to reject a challenge to ballot access laws is, in practice, using a litmus test.”
I see ballot “overcrowding”, “frivolous” candidacies and voter “confusion” as handy ongoing rhetorical tools in the industry to keep less franchised politically minority oriented from gaining traction. If there are more than two candidates listed there is overcrowding and yet limiting it to two is no answer. If there is more than two candidates on the ballot there exists one or more frivolous candidates. If there more than twice and many voters as candidates there will be some voter confusion.
If we merely surveyed the voter, on the ballot about their burden with respect to the total number of candidates for each office and undue consideration they extended to candidacies the identified as having little merit, and whether overall they encountered a level of confusion with balloting and anything within that, we would snuff this canard out.
This is ridiculous. Of course states need to use evidence to support ballot access restrictions. To just do it arbitrarily sound like blatant election rigging.