The federal court decision upholding Pennsylvania’s ballot access petition requirements for qualified minor parties is flawed. The judge didn’t even mention the only on-point precedent in favor of the plaintiffs. That precedent is from Maryland’s highest state court, and is called Maryland Green Party v Bd. of Elections. It was issued in 2003. Although the Maryland case is not binding on a federal court in Pennsylvania, it is influential. The fact that the Pennsylvania judge didn’t even mention it shows that he did not read the briefs thoroughly.

The Pennsylvania judge also failed to mention the most useful US Supreme Court ballot access precedent, Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party. In that decision, issued in 1979, the Supreme Court said lower court judges are supposed to use common sense when they evaluate petition requirements. In the Illinois case, the Court thought it was foolish of Illinois to require a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast, for Cook County office, when that resulted in a signature requirement of over 40,000 signatures. That was because Illinois only required 25,000 signatures for statewide office.

The facts in the Pennsylvania current case are not the same, but the logic is the same. Pennsylvania already has a fairly stringent definition of “party,” and in the last 80 years, there has never been a time when there were more than 5 qualified parties in Pennsylvania (the state’s definition of “party” has been unchanged since 1893).

The Pennsylvania judge used “ballot clutter” to uphold the requirement that even the qualified minor parties must submit tens of thousands of signatures for their nominees. Yet the evidence in front of him told him that there are only 5 qualified parties (Democratic, Republican, Constitution, Green and Libertarian). Five parties does not make a “cluttered” ballot. A US Supreme Court concurring opinion in 1968 said that having 8 parties on the ballot does not harm the voter and does not result in ballot clutter. The Pennsylvania judge didn’t mention that case, either (Williams v Rhodes).