On April 30, U.S. District Court Judge David Russell upheld Oklahoma’s procedure for independent presidential candidates. Barr v Ziriax, civ-08-730-R. The decision is only eight pages long. The decision does not try to rebut either of the plaintiff’s two most powerful arguments. Oklahoma required 43,913 signatures for an independent presidential candidate in 2008, but didn’t require any signatures for independent candidates for other office. The U.S. Supreme Court had said in Anderson v Celebrezze that states have less interest in keeping independent presidential candidates off their ballot, than in keeping independent candidates for other office off the ballot. Yet the decision does not acknowledge that point.
Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that courts are supposed to examine how often a challenged ballot access law is used. No one has qualified under the Oklahoma independent presidential petition procedure since 1992, yet the decision simply says that since the law was upheld (by the same judge) in both 1996 and 2000, the matter is closed. Plaintiffs will appeal to the 10th circuit.
The Imperial Global Empire of the USA: one more political party than Hitler or Stalin………….
Separate is NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — NOT brought up by the armies of MORON lawyers in ballot access cases since 1968.
3%? I thought it was 5%. Or has the 3% bill been passed and signed?
Oklahoma’s petition for a party to become qualified is 5% of the last vote cast. Oklahoma’s petition for an independent presidential candidate, or the for the presidential nominee of an unqualified party, is 3% of the last presidential vote.
Since the ballot serves no purpose beyond ratification of the status quo, secede. You can’t and don’t have to vote on that. Expatriation is also a mode of secession. It may also be possible to declare oneself a ‘stateless’ person. If so, that is another mode of secession.
I suppose if ballot access prevents you from choosing candidates of your own, you are de facto stateless person already. Just admit it.