On June 15, a U.S. District Court Magistrate upheld Oregon’s law that makes it illegal for a primary voter to sign an independent candidate’s petition. The case is called Wasson v Bradbury, no. 06-6205-TC. Some federal cases are assigned to Magistrates because judges have too many cases to handle them all.

It is true that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “primary screen-out” laws, in 1974. However, the Texas law upheld in 1974 covered both petitions for minor and new parties, as well as independent candidates. The Oregon primary screen-out law only covers independent candidates. In other words, Oregon in 2004 required a minor party to collect 18,000 signatures from the ranks of all registered voters; but required an independent candidate to collect 18,000 signatures only from people who are registered yet who didn’t vote in the primary. Therefore, the 2005 law made it far more difficult for an independent candidate to get on the ballot, than an entire new party to get on the ballot.

The amicus brief filed by COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections) pointed out all the court precedents that say states can’t make it more difficult for an independent candidate to get on, than an entire new party. The magistrate completely ignored this point in his decision.

The magistrate said the purpose of the screen-out is to prevent “spoiler” candidates from getting on the ballot. The magistrate’s point is nonsense. The primary screen-out makes it very difficult for any independent candidate to get on the ballot, whether he or she is perceived as a “spoiler” or not. Whether someone is perceived to be a “spoiler” candidate is a matter of partisan politics. The Constitution does not permit any state to choose whether or not to let a candidate on the ballot based on his or her political views, and how they compare with the political views of the major party nominees. And since a “spoiler” is generally considered to be someone who has at least a fair amount of voter appeal (compared to an independent candidate who is not considered a “spoiler”), the magistrate really seems to be saying that the state has more interest in keeping candidates with substantial support off the ballot, than it has an in keeping a candidate with little or no support off the ballot. This is backwards.