On August 7, an amicus curiae brief was filed in Rubin v Bowen, in the California State Court of Appeals. Rubin v Bowen is the case in which the Peace & Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Green Party of Alameda County argue that Proposition 14, the top-two primary law, violates the rights of voters in the general election who wish to vote for minor party candidates.
The amicus is filed by the California Green Party and can be read here.
On August 7, the Sixth Circuit heard oral argument in Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, 12-5975. The issues are: (1) is the 2.5% petition (of the last gubernatorial vote) for newly-qualifying parties constitutional, given that independent candidates only need 25 signatures?; (2) is the law putting the major party nominees on the top spot on the ballot constitutional?
Thirty minutes had been allotted for this case, but the court actually took 45 minutes. Anyone can listen to the oral argument at this link, from the Sixth Circuit’s web page.
The attorney for Tennessee spoke first, and she was also permitted to speak again at the end of the hearing, for approximately five minutes. During her rebuttal five-minute period, she was asked about the ballot order issue. She said that in partisan general elections, the order of candidates is not important, because in partisan general elections, the single most important factor for a voter to decide how to vote is the party label. Of course, that statement merely supports the minor parties’ point that when they are forced to qualify their candidates as independents, which means they don’t have their party label on the ballot, that they are being significantly harmed.
The three judges were R. Guy Cole, Deborah L. Cook, and Helene White. Judge White asked the most questions and seemed to feel that the plaintiffs are correct when they argue that the state has no real interest in requiring 40,000 signatures for minor parties, when independent candidates only need 25.
On August 7, U.S. District Court Judge Martha Vazquez refused to enjoin New Mexico’s 3% petition requirement for independent candidates. As a result, unless there is a quick appeal, only one candidate, a Democrat, will be on the November ballot for Public Education Commission in District Four. The plaintiff, James T. Parker, is an independent candidate and the incumbent. The decision is Parker v Duran, 14-cv-617. The plaintiffs’ main argument had been that there can’t be any state interest in requiring him to submit a 3% petition, when the nominee of a qualified minor party only needs a 1% petition.
Judge Vazquez’ 20-page opinion fails to mention any of the precedents that say it is unconstitutional for a state to require more signatures for an independent candidate than for an entire new party. Those precedents are from the Florida Supreme Court in 1974, a U.S. District Court in North Carolina in 2004, and a U.S. District Court in Alabama in 1990. Instead, she mentioned a 1986 Oklahoma case that said it is constitutional for a state to require more signatures for an entire new party than for an independent candidate, but that is not quite the same thing. She also wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court approved of Texas’ independent candidate petitions of 3% and 5% for local office, but she did not say that Texas capped the number of signatures needed by an independent for district or county office at 500 signatures. If New Mexico capped independent petition requirements at 500 signatures, the plaintiff would have qualified.
Judge Vazquez has a bad record on ballot access. In 2006, when the Libertarian Party sued New Mexico over the requirement that the nominee of a ballot-qualified minor party must submit a petition to be on the general election ballot, she first scheduled a trial, and then one business day before the trial, cancelled the trial and ruled without having heard evidence.
Peoria, Arizona, spent thousands of dollars to re-send absentee ballots in this month’s city council race, because the original ballots accidentally omitted Ken Krieger’s name. He is one of three candidates for city council in his district. But, unfortunately, the replacement ballots also omitted his name. See this story.
Pennsylvania has decided not to ask the Third Circuit to re-hear Constitution Party v Aichele, 13-1952. This is the decision that said minor parties do have standing to argue that the challenge-court costs system violates the U.S. Constitution. On July 23, the state had told the Third Circuit that it might file for re-hearing and it wanted a time extension until August 6. The extension was granted, but then the state didn’t use it.
Meanwhile, in the other Pennsylvania minor party ballot access case, Green Party v Aichele, a trial date will be set on August 13. This is the case that challenges these laws: (1) each petition sheet must keep residents of different counties separate; (2) no one can sign except registered voters; (3) notarization of each sheet; (4) the ban on out-of-state circulators. The judge in this case has already enjoined the ban on out-of-state circulators, but so far has refused to enjoin the other problems. The trial is needed to determine the constitutionality of each of these restrictions.
