On May 24, Arkansas filed this brief in Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Thurston, e.d., 4:19cv-214. This is the case in which the party challenges the new ballot access law passed this year, raising the petition for newly qualifying parties from 10,000 to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote.
The state argues that because the Eighth Circuit in 2010 upheld the 3% vote test for a party to remain on, therefore the petition requirement of 3% must also be constitutional. But the reason the Eighth Circuit upheld the 3% vote test is that in practice, at the time, the 3% vote test had not kept the plaintiff Green Party from appearing on the ballot as a qualified party in all elections 2006 through the date of that opinion. Therefore, the court ruled that the 3% vote test was not a severe burden. The Arkansas vote test, by itself, did not keep any party off the ballot.
The state’s brief does not mention the fact that in all the years in the past when Arkansas had a party petition in excess of 10,000 signatures, no party ever successfully used that petition procedure. The state does not mention the U.S. Supreme Court opinions that say that a ballot access law is too difficult if no one ever uses it.
No federal court has ever struck down a vote test on the grounds that it was too high. But many federal courts have struck down petition requirements for a party or a statewide independent to get on the ballot, including courts in Arkansas itself, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota.
“Eighth Circuit in 2020” can you now see into the future, if so what are the powerball numbers
Thanks! I meant 2010 and have now fixed it.
One more moron case in a long line of moron cases since 1968 Williams v Rhodes — mere 51 years —
1. Separate is NOT equal – Brown v Bd of Ed 1954
2. Individuals are nominated/elected.
3. Each election is NEW.
4. EQUAL ballot access tests.
SCOTUS morons at work in 2-4.
Before the states monopolized the ballot beginning in the 1880s it was the voters prerogative to “winnow” candidates without prior censorship by entrenched duopoly incumbent elites.
Were the first 100 years of elections under the Constitution chaotic?
Abolish all ballot access laws. Free the voters to choose whomsoever they want and make term limits a non-issue.
Congress can act by making the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot mandatory in all elections for all voters in all states and territories; assuming Congress itself actually has the constitutional power to monopolize the ballot which it has neglected to exercise since the founding of the republic.
I read the State’s brief. One comment I have relates to their discussion of the “modicum of support” argument that the state makes. They claim that the LP doesn’t have a “modicum of support” on the sole basis of the failure of their gubernatorial candidate to get 3% of the vote (as I recall, he came pretty close, though). But why should the only test for “modicum of support” be based on the results in one single race? There are plenty of other elections that were contested in 2018 in Arkansas, and LP candidates did quite well in those. Some of those, as I recall were two-way only, but others were three-way. The law’s focus solely on the results of the gubernatorial race seems to be an exceedingly narrow way to measure a party’s “modicum of support.” For this purpose, I am accepting, for the sake of argument that a state can legitimately require a demonstration of a “modicum of support.”
The problem isn’t saying “you ought to have 3% support”, the problem is requiring a petition to prove it.
Petitioning is very cumbersome and expensive. By now, the courts should understand that a petition amounts to a massive filing fee.
There must be other ways of gauging what percent of voters want the party on the ballot. They could let the party do a scientific phone poll, and if 3% of the respondents say “I think that party should be on the ballot”, that’s a demonstration of 3% support.
The fact that the Libertarian Party has been functioning for nearly fifty years and has members and voters in all states meets any plausible that its candidates have a “modicum of support.” The state proxies for the duopoly should be told by the courts to take their modicum and shove it. But the courts are not the solution they are part of the problem. An aroused electorate is the solution.
Elector form- [9, 10 or 12] point type, [3.5 by 4.25 inches]
NOMINATING PETITION – [PARTISAN (for legislative offices)] [NONPARTISAN (for executive/judicial offices)]
I nominate (candidate’s name and address) (of the (one word party name – not more than 16 capital letters) Party) for (office) in (election area) at the (date) general election.
Elector signature, printed name, address and date signed.
Return to- (address)
—
in media / on internet
NO extremist caucuses, primaries and conventions.
“modicum of support” — one of many phrases invented by many SCOTUS hacks to justify their many MORON ops. — esp. in election law cases.
The national Libertarian Party is trying to block female candidates for POTUS by adding far more attendees (1200+?) than Electors in the Elector College so that a small minority of bosses can influence the results by bringing attention to male candidates for US President.
Our team won the 2012 primary of MO which fell before the national convention with 52.8% and our message of men who can exhibit teamwork so to bring the three-party system to POTUS in the future was blocked by those same Libertarian Party bosses who didn’t let our female candidates speak (Waymire, Barr, Brisoe and Cook) and instead they opened the door for a male chair who brought us the one-party system, approval voting in single-winner districts.
Now they’re doing it again so we need to work harder to bring team players so to protect the participants who are underdogs against the party bosses who are males nominating males and they aren’t using proportional representation.
The United Coalition USA pure proportional representation (PPR) Electoral College is already nominating Electors and everyone is free to stand, stand down, vote and/or change your vote through Earth Day, Sunday April 19th 2020, and then those attending the national L.P. convention May also enjoy these same liberties as Elector:
http://www.allpartysystem.com/e-aps-13-totals.php
Men, please start joining as a Libertarian Party national convention delegate Memorial Day, May of 2020, all parties and independents working together for the good of the whole. I plan to be there on the Horst ticket.
@DFR,
One could write in any name, but practically no one did, accepting a party ballot or one printed in a newspaper. Thugs would disrupt distribution of ballot of opponent parties, voters would be bribed (given a meal of a boiled egg and a hunk of bread, and a pint of watered-down beer, and a ballots would be stuffed. Fake ballots would be printed (a ballot with a picture of a Donkey and blue ink could still have Trump’s name). Not all states used paper ballots. Some voted viva voce.
The problem is not that the government prints ballots, but that political parties retained control.
Eliminate party nominations, and make all candidates qualify by demonstrating support of some modest number of voters (0.1% of previous gubernatorial vote). In Oklahoma, that would be 1187 for statewide office, 238 for Congress, 25 for senate, and 12 for House.
James, that is absurd to say that the Libertarian Party is trying to block female candidates for President.
Ogle needs to go to therapy.