In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it violates the First Amendment for a state to require that parties let non-members help choose their nominees (California Democratic Party v Jones). However, some states require an unqualified party to circulate petitions that carry the names of that party’s nominees. The language on these petitions typically says that the signers “hereby nominate” the candidates who are listed on the petition.
In 2006, the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties jointly filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania, which has no procedure for an unqualified party to place its nominees on the November ballot, except by a petition that lists the party’s candidates. The three parties argued that this system violates the core principle of California Democratic Party v Jones. However, the lawsuit lost. The 3rd circuit said that the miscellaneous voters on the street who sign the petition are not really nominating that party’s nominees.
The 3rd circuit said, at page 198 (the decision is at 468 F 3d 189), “Jones is not applicable to a ballot access case like the present one, in which internal party deliberations on the choice of party candidates are not implicated. Unlike the law at issue in Jones, Pennsylvania election law does not open the intra-party deliberations of minor political parties to persons who are unaffiliated with the party. Forced association caused by sec. 2911b occurs only as a minor party candidate solicits signatures from registered voters, who may be registered with any party or as an independent…In Pennsylvania, a minor political party is free to select anyone it chooses as its candidate.”
So, even though the Pennsylvania petitions have signature lines under a heading that says, “I hereby nominate…”, the court, in order to save the Pennsylvania law from a judgment of unconstitutionality, interpreted the procedure to mean that the petition signers are not nominating anyone. Instead, the 3rd circuit said, petition signers are saying only they want that party to be on the ballot. This interpretation will help the Libertarian Party with its pending lawsuits over whether it can have nominees on the November ballot who are different individuals than the individuals who had been listed on petitions.
In other words, this losing PA case will be useful in Taxachussetts this year, but not in PA.
“This interpretation will help the Libertarian Party with its pending lawsuits over whether it can have nominees on the November ballot who are different individuals than the individuals who had been listed on petitions.”
Actually the losing 2006 PA case will help the Libertarian Party this year in Pennsylvania, as well as helping in Massachusetts. The Libertarian case in Pennsylvania this year concerns a Republican challenge to the substitution procedure used to put Bob Barr on the ballot.
I think you are confusing what the 3rd Circuit did say with regard to Jones and what you wished they had said.
They simply said that the minor political parties are free to determine which names they place on the petitions which they then invite the public at large to sign.
In your quote from the decision, you missed the court’s use of quotation marks around “forced”.
So the judge is saying that a party can list anyone as its nominees when circulating a petition, but then nominate for the ballot anyone else?
If so, then why not put a famous name like Thomas Jefferson on the petition? The logic of the judge seems odd. Why not just strike down a requirement that any name(s) appear on the petitions?
BTW, who becomes President if the vote winning candidate dies after the election? Is the electoral ‘college’ free to choose anyone? I think they are. So why list the names of Presidential candidates on the ballot anyway? The candidates are really just surrogates for the Presidential electors. Yet many states don’t want to list the names of Electors on the ballot at all. What a messy way to do business.