Here is the final brief in Cowen v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:17cv-4660. This is the Georgia Libertarian Party’s lawsuit against the petition requirements for U.S. House, which were passed in 1943 and have never been used by a minor party, and have not been used by an independent since 1964. A decision should be out by the end of the calendar year.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Doesn’t Georgia also have a fairly difficult petition signature requirement for the state legislature and for county offices?
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
———
NOOOOO such thing as a *political question* —
Each act or omission does or does not violate the LAW.
————
Too many really stupid conlaw profs, lawyers and esp judges to count in ballot access cases since 1968 – 52 years of UNEQUAL rotted cases/ops.
Andy, yes, it is the same 5% petition, but once in a while someone uses the requirement for state legislature or partisan county office, because the number of signatures is so much lower than it is for US House. For US House it is over 20,000. Plus a very high filing fee. And the petitioning period is 180 days.
That is insanely difficult.
I’m not too optimistic that the law will be struck down, but it should be. As someone who votes for Democrats but lobbies for fairer ballot access rules and legalization of electoral fusion
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/pennsylvania-gop-leaders-ask-justices-to-block-order-on-counting-absentee-ballots-after-election-day/#more-296533
PA SUP CT in SCOTUS – has 2 links to GOP stuff
2 USC 7
—-
Super crisis confirmation of Barrett- in next SECOND ???
For an individual us house candidate, I think 1,000 signatures is ample to show that the candidate is serious.
For a party and a slate of its candidates, anything higher then 5,0000 should be suspect.
Max — X pct of voters in area at last Prez/Guv election.
Solve for X.
ONE voter nom pet forms – internet, papers, mags, junk mail ads, etc.