On July 9, the 9th circuit struck down two Arizona ballot access restrictions: (1) an independent presidential petition deadline in early June; (2) a law that out-of-state residents may not circulate petitions in Arizona. The case is Nader v Brewer, 06-16251.
The vote was 3-0. The decision striking down the ban on out-of-state circulators, by its logic, would apply to any type of petition. Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote the opinion.
The decision might have an impact on the 2008 election. It may make it possible for Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party presidential candidate) to qualify in Arizona. He would need 21,759 valid signatures by mid-August.
The decision will help the proposed Oklahoma ballot access case soon to be filed by Bob Barr, and it also makes it more likely that the pending ACLU lawsuit against Montana’s March petition deadline (for office other than president) will win.
Richard, this is not “huge news” as you are reporting, but rather HU-FRIGGIN’-MONGOUS NEWS!
This might be the best ballot access victory for our movement EVER! This will affect numerous other States, and have a positive impact on the ENTIRE! petitioning industry.
Each State happens to be a sovereign NATION-State.
Having nonresidents of a State take part in the internal government of a State is one more election law thing that the party hack Supremes have totally screwed up.
Sorry — the 1789-1791 1st Amendment was NOT aimed at the internal election law in each sovereign State.
It was of course aimed at having *critical* comments about any MORON actions or non-actions by the U.S.A. regime — and later the State regimes via 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — speech, press, assembly, petition.
EQUAL ballot access requirements for ALL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area is the other main thing that the Supremes have screwed up since 1968 — Williams v. Rhodes and ALL later ballot access cases — causing these endless series of lower Fed and State court election cases to go on and on and on.
Once in awhile even the party hack Supremes somehow detect a TOTAL legal error in their MORON opinions and overrule stuff — see for example the Erie case in 1938 — NO federal common law — overruling scores of cases going back to 1842 — a mere 98 years of *unconstitutional* party hack opinions.
Now a mere 40 years of screwed up ballot access cases in the party hack Supremes waiting to be overruled with the help of some genius lawyers, law school profs or even lower court judges.
Does this ruling effectively overturn the residency requirements in other states covered by the Ninth Circuit as well?
Demo Rep says, “Having nonresidents of a State take part in the internal government of a State…”
Should we also ban (1) non-residents from lobbying legislatures, and (2) non-residents from working in state political campaigns?
Did you major in math, Demo Rep? 1842 to 1938 was 96 years.
Lawsuits would have to be filed in other states with similar laws in the 9th Circuit. They would be easy cases, assuming that the 9th Circuit’s ruling is upheld.
Banning people who travel in from a different state from asking people to sign petitions is a violation of free speech rights and is merely a tactic that the establishment politicians use to squash opposition so they can maintain their power.
Such a “law” is bad for the general public in any state because it leads to less choices on their ballots.
Funny how there are no bans on out-of-state lobbyists, campaign managers, and political fundraisers.