No federal court has ever struck down any state’s law, on how a party remains on the ballot. However, the Arkansas Green Party, and the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party, are in an excellent position to file such lawsuits and win them.
The Arkansas Green Party polled 21% for U.S. Senate on November 4, and it elected a state legislator, Richard Carroll. It had nominees in three of the four U.S. House districts, and they polled 23%, 22%, and 14%. Yet Arkansas will disqualify the party, since Arkansas only looks at the vote for President or Governor (depending on whether which office is up). It is absurd for a state to say a party that achieved what the Green Party did in 2008, does not have enough voter support to justify being on the ballot in the next election.
In Pennsylvania, the Libertarian Party polled enough votes for some of the statewide state offices to meet the state’s definition of “party”. But it is treated as though it weren’t a qualified party, because it has registration of less than 15% of the state total. No party has ever directly challenged the 15% registration test. However, in the 3rd circuit opinion Rogers v Cortes, one of the three judges expressed doubt that the 15% registration test is constitutional. The other two judges did not say anything about that. The 15% registration test is so severe, if it existed in Massachusetts and D.C., the Republicans would not be on the ballot; and if it existed in Utah, the Democrats would not be on.
One virtue of a Top 2 or other similar system in which a candidate runs for office as a individual is that ballot qualification is typically less restrictive.
When qualification is based on party, the major parties, who control the legislatures who write the election laws, make it relatively easy for their candidates to qualify for entry into their nomination process; but make it hard for independent candidates or 3rd parties to qualify.
Notnecessarily. When the Illinois legislature made Chicago executive elections non-partisan, they also said that a non-partisan candidate for Mayor of Chicago needs 13,000 signatures.
Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election results.
Much too difficult for the armies of MORON lawyers and even worse MORON judges to understand — especially the SUPER-MORON Supremes and their MORON clerks.
Equal general election ballot access via equal nominating petitions.
P.R. and A.V. — regardless of everything.
In Pennsylvania we would have to be very careful. We do not want to get forced into a closed primary under the current circumstances. Many rural townships don’t have sufficient registered Libertarian voters to get a candidate on the primary election ballot.
We would often need almost all the registered Libertarians to get one candidate on a primary ballot for many county or district offices. Even then, they would all have to vote so the vote total would meet the minimum signature requirement or the nomination is no good.
The only benefit would be that ballot access for statewide candidates is easier under that system. If it would help us move to the Delaware model, that would an approach we could take through the courts. Otherwise we will be better off pursuing a legislative remedy.
It doesn’t follow logically that if the Pennsylvania 15% registration law were overturned, that the minor parties would be forced to nominate by primary. If a court declared the law unconstitutional, the legislature could react by setting up a two-tier system of qualified parties. The smaller tier would nominate by convention, as it done in Pennsylvania’s neighbors Delaware and Maryland.
If the judicial action were to done to facilitate legislative action that is one thing. If the judicial action only results in the 15% requirement getting overturned and the Libertarian Party (and/or others) being considered a “political party” under the PA election code, then those parties would have to nominate candidates as a political party under the code in the absence of legislative action. In PA that means a closed primary, there is no alternative. The legislature would likely react by doing nothing as it would effectively squash the bulk of third party (at least any others meeting the political party definition) challenges for local and district office. I don’t know, right now it may be better to simply pursue a legislative remedy.
In PA, tell your congressperson to help get Senator Mike Folmer’s Voter’s Choice Act passed! If I understand it correctly, it would change ballot access requirements and qualified parties to Delaware’s standard.
When a court declares a law unconstitutional, and the legislature does nothing, then the state must put any party on the ballot with no petition! That’s what happened in Ohio this year. Lawsuits do not create a new hurdle; they just knock down old hurdles. Timidity is not a winning proposition. Lobbying is far more effective when a lawsuit is going on simultaneously.
The population of Chicago is equivalent to about 4 congressional districts. Independent qualification in 4 congressional districts in Illinois is probably in the 40,000 to 50,000. 13,000 signatures to run for mayor almost sounds rational.
Do you think if Illinois had Top 2 elections for Congress that all candidates would need 10 to 15,000 signatures to qualify.