The Illinois ballot access lawsuit called Stevo v Keith is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is case 08-1187. If Illinois state government wishes to ask the Court not to take the case, the state’s response is due April 24. Sometimes defendants waive their right to respond. It will be interesting to see if Illinois responds. The issue is whether the state has any real interest in requiring about 10,000 signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House in some years, when it only requires 5,000 in certain other years.
Administrative simplicity.
A percentage standard maintains proportionality. That was the underlying problem when it took more signatures to run for mayor of Chicago, than governor of Illinois. Congressional districts have been growing, and participation as well. It also recognizes the differences in participation and voter population in different CDs.
But the percentage is not well defined following redistricting, since no election has ever been conducted in the new district. So a modest standard is set for those years, that in almost all cases will be less than the percentage value.
The question is not what is the state interest in requiring 5,000 signatures in years after redistricting. Instead, the question is what is the state interest in requiring 5% in the other election years? Because the record shows that even 5,000 signatures keeps the ballot uncrowded, why does the state need twice as many?
The record shows that Illinois’s estimate of 5,000 signatures following redistricting has no consequential effect. Independent candidates were as likely to qualify following presidential election years as mid-term years, despite the increased numeric value in those years.
5% is a modicum of support level that the US Supreme Court has been upheld in other elections.
Your standard would leave the State subject to repeated litigation. The ballot wasn’t “crowded” with 5000. How about 4000? Alternatively, you would have the courts legislating a new standard.