On May 1, U.S. District Court Judge Alan Kay, a Reagan appointee, upheld Hawaii’s petition-checking procedures. The Hawaii Supreme Court had also upheld them, on March 27. The federal case is called Nader v Cronin, 04-611, and had been filed by Ralph Nader and Michael Peroutka in 2004, after the state had disqualified approximately half of the signatures on their independent presidential petitions.
Judge Kay cited the US Supreme Court decision of April 28, 2008, on the Indiana photo ID-law for voting at the polls. He said, “Recently, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional an Indiana law requiring government issued photo identification to vote. See Crawford, 2008 WL 1848103. In this case, the petition form simply required signatories to properly provide information requested on the information form. The requirements in this case are far less cumbersome than those in Crawford…The Supreme Court has noted the prevalence of fraudulent voting throughout this Nation’s history. Moreover, the court in Crawford explained that while no evidence of actual voter fraud had been shown in that case, the threat of voter fraud was real and the state’s interest in preventing it was ‘a neutral and nondiscriminatory reason supporting the State’s decision to require photo identification.”
Hawaii is the only state that requires the last 4 digits of the signer’s Social Security Number on the petition (if the SS number is not provided, then the signer must provide his or her full birthdate). Ironically, Hawaii’s policy on Social Security numbers or birthdates facilitates, or could facilitate, identity theft. So Judge Kay has upheld a state policy that encourages identity theft, and justified it under “preventing fraud.” Judge Kay’s opinion is also faulty for not acknowledging that the U.S. Supreme Court only upheld the Indiana law on its face, in a case that had no disadvantaged voter-plaintiffs, and had said that a new case can be filed by such a voter-plaintiff.
This Hawaii federal case will be appealed to the 9th circuit, not only on the issue of the petition-checking procedures, but on the issue decided earlier by Judge Kay, that it is constitutional for a state to require six times as many signatures for a single independent candidate as for an entire new party.
I don’t understand what requiring voters to provide photo IDs and their SS#s has to do with Nader’s petitions.
And this:
“it is constitutional for a state to require six times as many signatures for a single independent candidate as for an entire new party.â€
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For an independent presidential candidate.
Independent candidates for other offices have much lower petition standards, but must run in the primary and get 10% of the vote, or outpoll one of the partisan nominees.
Parties must maintain a state central commitee, county central committee in each of the four major counties, and have established party rules. Unless they perform to a certain standard, they must repeatedly requalify. The petition to qualify a party indicates that the signatories wish to enter into a political association. Individual candidates for the party nomination must either pay a fee with a small number of signature, or no fee, but with a number of signatures that is roughly equivalent to that required for independent presidential candidates.
Jim R – I just wanted to clarify that the signers of the Hawaii petition to qualify a new political party are not entering into a political affiliation. The petition reads: “We, as registered voters in the State of Hawaii, declare by signature hereon that we intend to qualify a new political party in this State.” And as we found out in this years petition campaign, Hawaii registered voters can sign petitions for more than one political party.
Also, we can start gathering signatures to requalify a political party (if necessary) in April of the previous year to the electon. Giving nearly a whole year to collect ~700 valid signatures (663 for 2008). Only about half the time is allowed to gather the over 4000 valid signatures required to get an independent presidential candidate on the ballot. Hopefully the 9th Circuit will see the unfairness of this issue.
“Hawaii is the only state that requires the last 4 digits of the signer’s Social Security Number on the petition (if the SS number is not provided, then the signer must provide his or her full birthdate).”
Richard, the candidate petitions in Kentucky also asked for a Social Security Number – the entire number. However, these petitions also said that people could put their date of birth instead, which is what almost everyone did.
Not a good court ruling, but the Greens managed to collect enough valid signatures and the deadline for challenges has passed. The petition is good for 10 years. HA! Better luck keeping us off the ballot in 2018!
Re #3. See HRS §11-61 which defines a political party. While it may be technically correct that signatories are not joining the association, they are supporting the formation and the recognition of a political association.
Note that even if a party qualifies by petition 3 elections in a row, to maintain that qualification for the next 5 elections, they must field candidates at every election and maintain their party structure. A presidential-only party would not be possible.
Just because having a party permits placement of a presidential candidate on the ballot, that is more of a bonus than a reason for the existence of a party. I don’t think it makes a particularly convincing argument that one can game the system by creating a sham party every 4 years in order to get on the ballot easily.
You might have a better case based on [i]Burdick v Takashi[/i] since the system of ballot qualification it sanctioned does not apply to presidential candidates. Maybe Hawaii should let presidential candidates qualify in the primary, and let independent candidates also run.
Alternatively, now that the legislature has approved entry into the national popular vote compact, it should be pointed out that Hawaiian electors may be forced to vote for a candidate that Hawaiian citizens are forbidden to vote for.