On May 15, the Virginia Constitution Party, the Virginia Green Party, and an independent U.S. House candidate filed a federal lawsuit against Virginia petition requirements. Constitution Party of Virginia v Virginia State Board of Elections, e.d., 3:20cv-349. It asks that the petition requirements be declared unconstitutional due to the health crisis. Here is the Complaint.
UPDATE: here is a newspaper story about the lawsuit.
Virginia requires presidential candidates to file 5,000 signatures by August 21, and congressional candidates to file by June 15. The state normally sets the independent non-presidential petition deadline on primary day, but this year the state moved the primary to June 23 but did not even bother to also extend the petition deadline.
The lawsuit includes a Green Party nominee for U.S. House. U.S. House candidates need 1,000 signatures.
The lawsuit is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, an Obama appointee. Thanks to Carey Campbell for the news.
I’m curious why the Libertarian Party of Virginia is not a party to this lawsuit. They were a party to similar lawsuits filed in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.
From the LP National website’s list of 2020 candidates, there are only two LP candidates running for elective office in Virginia, and both are in local elections. However, even if they don’t have any candidates for Congress or the Senate, I’d think they want to ensure that their candidate for President and Vice President can qualify for the ballot.
Equal Ballot Access Brief, 7 NOV 2019 V.2
The fundamental constitutional principle of SEPARATE-IS-NOT-EQUAL in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954), was unfortunately N-O-T brought up in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) — the first *modern* ballot access case in SCOTUS.
Every State has SEPARATE and UNEQUAL ballot access laws for the INDIVIDUAL candidates for partisan offices —
(1) old or new major parties,
(2) old or new minor parties,
(3) and independents.
[At least 5 classes – Specify for State involved].
Also, the following basic points have not been properly noticed —
(1) there is ONE class of electors in a general election,
(2) there is ONE class of candidates on the general election ballots (i.e. a candidate is on or off the ballots) and
(3) each general election for each office is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior general election — for such office (or any other office) — or any other thing since 4 July 1776 — EXCEPT the number of actual voters at the prior general election in the election area of the office involved — for having EQUAL nominating petitions at the next election (see below).
A-L-L ballot access cases have failed to note such basic points including —
Williams,
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971),
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974),
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986),
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) and
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008).
[I.E. suggest/demand that ALL of the cases beginning with Williams be overruled.]
The Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amendment, Sec. 1 requires that all INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME election area pass the SAME (i.e. *EQUAL*) test(s) for ballot access to get on state or local general election ballots.
Obviously an *EQUAL* nominating petition for ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area will show which INDIVIDUAL candidates have a preliminary showing of voter support.
See also Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) (equal regional treatment of electors who sign petitions) and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-636 (1996) (discrimination against homosexuals).
The Moore case was noted in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 107 (2000).
—-
The cases can be seen via—
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
——-
ANY lawyers and judges with ANY brain cells about EQUAL in 14-1 in election law cases ???
Acrimony in the disaffiliated CPVA. They are doing like Idaho did four years ago and supporting someone other than the national party nominee. In ’16, Darrell Castle had to run as an independent candidate in Idaho because the disaffiliated party there nominated second place convention finisher Scott Copeland instead. Now we see Virginia nominating the third place national convention finisher, “Samm” Tittle, who is from Virginia. Very odd that they did not pick the runner up, Charles Kraut, who is also from Virginia. Doesn’t really matter since, unlike Idaho CP, the Virginia CP does not have ballot access. Will be interesting to see if Don Blankenship follows in the footsteps of Darrell and secures ballot access in Virginia as an independent.
New Mexico has ballot access and they are running Tittle as well . I thought Idaho does have ballot access?
“Will be interesting to see if Don Blankenship follows in the footsteps of Darrell and secures ballot access in Virginia as an independent.”
Darrell Castle did not qualify for the ballot in Virginia. They attempted to do a petition drive there at the last minute, but after a week, they realized they were probably not going to make it, so they gave up and pulled the plug.
Andy, I was referring to Idaho where the disaffiliated party there put someone else on the ballot. THAT state, Idaho, was where Mr. Castle petitioned for access as an indy. Likewise, the disaffiliated Virginia CP is supporting someone other than the national party’s nominee. If the lawsuit in Virginia succeeds, one would think it would open the door for independent candidates to obtain access without petitioning.
@Eric NM running Tittle? That’s news to me. Did New Mexico recently disaffiliate? It sure would be nice to see updated national convention vote maps on this site so as to see the preferences of each affiliated state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_National_Convention
There’s stories about it at Independent Political Report and American Third Party Report. They did not disaffiliate. The Independent Political Report story says both the state and national chairs said there are no plans for disaffiliation.
@Eric – Idaho, although disaffiliated from the national party, does have ballot access. They held a state-sponsored primary which was won by Don Blankenship, so I am guessing that, although he is the national party’s nominee, that they will grant him ballot access as well. It is too bad that he didn’t win the AIP primary because that would have returned California access to the CP instead of for the antiquated Prohibition Party. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
AIP ballot access doesn’t depend on their primary.
“There’s stories about it at Independent Political Report and American Third Party Report.”
Got a link?
Well, apparently you ARE correct, Eric. Regardless of incoming Chairman Clymer’s remarks, the CP would do well to vote to disaffiliate fringe elements like this. Weird. Just plain weird! https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2020/05/constitution-party-of-new-mexico-chairman-responds-to-ipr-national-chairman-chimes-in/
Google is your friend, folks. Here is the ATPR article on New Mexico CP: http://www.american3rdpartyreport.com/2020/05/cp-nm-rejects-national-nominee.html
Thanks, I guess I was just being lazy.
Interesting exchange between John CP-MO and FWW in the comments there. Apparently the Idaho CP is challenging the reports that Blankenship won their debate or primary, and say they will choose their own ticket.
Until I see a political party recognize that we do not vote for president, but rather Presidential Electors, and it is those Electors who should have their actual names on the ballot and be out campaigning for their votes, I will remain an unaffiliated independent voter. The so-called presidential candidates are mere placeholders for the slates of un-named electors which is disingenuous to the electorate and only contributes to the 3-ring circus that is the quadrennial presidential election. The Framers wisely created the Electoral College to be a deliberative body and take full responsibility for proper and honest candidate vetting, not the peanut gallery, myself included.
Since the Constitution Party of Virginia has no ballot access, I am not sure if they could stop Blankenship for doing a petition drive in that state, and being listed as the Constitution Party’s nominee on the ballot, or can they?
Not that I know. Is he actually funding ballot access though?
@Andy, Since the CPVA does not have ballot status, they are technically thus not a recognized party in the state. So, if the lawsuit is successful, they may not have a leg to stand on with Sheila “Samm” Tittle as their preferred candidate. It will be interesting to see what happens. Maybe both get listed as Constitution Party candidates.
@Ron, the Constitution Party is still working on their 2018 ballot access: https://www.constitutionparty.com/elections/ballot-access/
I know. I was asking if Blankenship is actually cutting the checks. Anyone know?
In response to the inquiry by TomP above: The Libertarian Party of Virginia was contacted by the Green Party of Virginia to join in state level ballot access measures but the LPVA lawsuit efforts are being handled by the national Libertarian Party.
The Libertarian Party as well as the Independent Green party were contacted by me, John Bloom, Chairman of the Constitution Party of Virginia, but Nick Dunbar the new Chair of the Libertarian Party of Virginia informed they were preparing their own lawsuit. If we win this lawsuit, it would have to also include all orther Third Parties, under the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) of the Constitution.
I’ve seen times when ballot access wins were interpreted to only apply to the parties that sued. Could that happen here?