On September 1, U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koeltl, a Clinton appointee, refused to enjoin the new, more severe definition of a qualified party that was created in New York in April 2020. The old vote test was that a group had to poll 50,000 vote for Governor. The new test, effective in November 2020, is that it must poll the greater of 2% or 130,000 votes for the office at the top of the ballot, every two years. This means President this year and Governor in 2022. SAM Party v Kosinski, s.d., 1:20cv-323. Here is the 44-page opinion.
The opinion does not consider the constitutionality of the new statewide petition requirement, which was raised this year from 15,000 to 45,000 signatures. Footnote one says that issue is not before the court.
The opinion relies on precedents that are not directly relevant to New York. All of the precedents cited are from states in which, if a party failed to meet the vote test, there was a method for it to regain its party status before the next election. These precedents are from Oklahoma, Arkansas, and North Carolina, all of which have a party petition that can be carried out in an odd year as well as an even year. Judge Koetl didn’t seem to grasp the point that New York is one of only eleven states that lacks any such procedure. He also relies on Jenness v Fortson, the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the Georgia 5% petition for the nominees of unqualified parties. At the time, Georgia also defined a party as a group that had polled 20%. Although the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the 20%, that was not part of the Jenness lawsuit. The Socialist Workers Party, which brought Jenness, did not mention the 20% vote test in any of its pleadings, so anything the U.S. Supreme Court said in Jenness about Georgia’s party definition was dicta.
Most frustrating about the decision is the list of state interests for the new vote test. The opinion says on pages 32ff that the chief state interest is the new public financing system, and the desire not to spend government resources on minor party candidates who might have weak voter appeal. But then footnote 9 on page 39 admits that, under a Second Circuit opinion, states don’t need to provide public funding for all candidates on the ballot. This footnote undercuts the whole rationale for the new vote test. The only other state interests cited are the usual boilerplate arguments about keeping candidates off the ballot if they lack a modicum of voter support.
The plaintiffs are the SAM Party and the Working Families Party. The SAM Party objects to the new vote test because it says it doesn’t want to run a presidential candidate, so will be dumped off the ballot for certain in November 2020. The judge merely says that the SAM Party has no good reason not to run a presidential candidate. Of course it is up to the party, not the government, to make a decision like that.
Finally, page 42 says the issue of injunctive relief at this point is premature, as applied to the Working Families Party, because it might meet the vote test in November 2020.
So this means no relief, thats lousy. SAM should have picked a candidate. Will this continue in the courts moving forward or is this the end for some smaller parties in New York State?
Just keep moving those goal posts out of reach.
And besides, why SHOULDN’T minor parties get public financing if the goal is to make elections more competitive?
This case is not over, even in U.S. District Court. The judge denied injunctive relief, but he hasn’t yet ruled on declaratory relief.
Sadly, it’s pretty clear that the Democrats of New York want a system in which only they ever become eligible for public financing. What a sham.
One thing that is particularly awful about this new law is that they tripled the petition signature requirement, yet they did not extend the time to gather the signatures. The fact that they did not triple the petition circulation period makes this even more egregious than it is, and tripling the requirement and increasing the vote test for party status, were rotten things to do.
One more minority rule gerrymander oligarch *law*.
Too many USELESS lawyers and judges ignoring EQUAL in 14-1 Amdt since 1868.
“The judge merely says that the SAM Party has no good reason not to run a presidential candidate. Of course it is up to the party, not the government, to make a decision like that.”
LOL and I bet the politicians who helped pass this law are out there telling voters not to “waste their votes” on third party candidates.
There is no reason that a single state party should be forced to run candidates in anything other than races for that single state. That’s reason enough not to run a candidate for the national Presidency. As a New Yorker, I want our state parties to be focused on New York’s issues, not whatever trouble they’re in down in DC. Running a candidate for president would not benefit our state, they all ignore us anyways.
This is a good tip particularly to those fresh to the blogosphere.
Simple but very accurate information… Appreciate your sharing this one.
A must read post!
Hi there I am so glad I found your web site, I really found
you by mistake, while I was searching on Aol for something else, Regardless I am here
now and would just like to say cheers for a fantastic post and a
all round enjoyable blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to read through
it all at the minute but I have saved it and also included your RSS feeds,
so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the fantastic job.
We absolutely love your blog and find many of your post’s to be
just what I’m looking for. Do you offer guest writers to
write content for you personally? I wouldn’t mind publishing a post or elaborating on a lot
of the subjects you write related to here. Again, awesome web log!
My family every time say that I am killing my time here at web, except I know I am getting familiarity all
the time by reading such nice articles or reviews.
Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all folks you
actually realize what you’re speaking about! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally consult with
my website =). We can have a hyperlink alternate contract between us
Ƭhis is my first time pay a visit at here and i am inn fact impressed to reɑd everthing
at alone pⅼace.
I enjoy your blog site. very good colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself or did
you hire somebody to do it for you? Plz respond as I’m aiming to create
my own blog and
wish to know where u got this from. numerous thanks. http://archerbxup77777.59bloggers.com/1100221/top-latest-five-australia-urban-news
An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto a
colleague who has been doing a little research on this.
And he actually ordered me lunch due to the fact that I stumbled upon it for him…
lol. So let me reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!!
But yeah, thanks for spending time to talk about this matter here on your site.
I believe this is among the such a lot important information for me.
And i’m glad reading your article. But wanna remark on some common issues, The website style is wonderful, the
articles is truly excellent : D. Just right job, cheers
Oh my goodness! Amazing article dude! Thank you, However I am encountering issues with your RSS.
I don’t understand the reason why I cannot subscribe to it.
Is there anyone else having similar RSS issues? Anyone who knows the answer will you kindly respond?
Thanx!!
Leave the co-op session once you have mined the crystal chunks and join one other
session.
This decision upheld a bad lw that wasn’t even made by the Legislature. The Legislature cannot legally give away its law-making authority.