Today Ralph Nader asked the US Supreme Court to put him on the Pennsylvania ballot. This is only the second time Nader has asked for help from the US Supreme Court this year. He previously requested that court to list him in Oregon, but his attempt was denied by a vote of 8-1.
Pennsylvania law, by its very terms and definitions, does not require signers to be registered voters. Instead they must be eligible to be registered to vote. That is the basis of Nader’s appeal to the US Supreme Court.
I’ve been following the Ohio ballot access issue pretty closely (probably too closely!!!), but have not paid so much attention to Pennsylvania. However, my impression is that Nader’s chances of getting the US Supreme Court to reverse the Pennsylvania courts is pretty slim, if the question merely involves interpretation of Pennsylvania law (although it may help Nader that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seems to have simply issued an order without bothering to explain the court’s rationale). Instead, the best argument Nader could make, in Pennsylvania, is that the right to petition is fundamental, and therefore someone who signs a petition can’t be brudened with a registration requirement unless there’s a compelling need for such a requirement. After all, the First Amendment specifically protects the right of the people to “petition the government for a redress of grievances,” and therefore the burden should be on the government to prove that a citizen is not eligible to sign a petition. Unlike voting, signing a petition is NOT done anonymously. When people vote using a secret ballot, there’s no way to undo the damage if a person votes twice, or if an ineligible person votes. In contrast, petitions are entirely different; they can be easily checked for accuracy, without any need for pre-registration.
Based on the AP story, it doesn’t look like Nader is disputing the PA Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law, which the U.S. Supreme court can’t do. Rather, he’s saying that the law as interpreted by the PA Supreme Court is unconstitutional. I don’t think he’ll win, but it’s worth nothing that the 3rd Circuit has already held in _Morrill v. Weaver_ that the same definition of a “qualified voter” was unconstitutional as applied to petition circulators (not signers).
Technically, I think the US Supreme Court can overturn a state supreme court decision, and may do so based solely on interpretation of state law, in extreme cases (e.g. when a state supreme court’s interpretation of law is manifestly and violently at odds with both the text and intent of state law).
Incidentally, the US Supreme Court held in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (ACLF) that petition circulators can’t constitutionally be burdened with a voter registration requirement.