The June 21 Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this story on the impending decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of part of the Voting Rights Act. That decision could come on June 22, and must come no later than June 29.
It is a sad commentary that Georgia’s Secretary of State can say that Georgia has no voting rights problems, when Georgia has kept all minor party candidates for U.S. House off the ballot in regularly-scheduled elections ever since 1943. Even the Libertarian Party, which is recognized as a qualified party for statewide office only, has never been allowed to place a candidate for U.S. House on the ballot in a regularly-scheduled election (the requirements for special elections are far easier, and a Libertarian once ran in a special election for US House).
Georgia also has a voting rights problem with its statewide ballot access laws. No statewide minor party or independent candidate petition has succeeded in Georgia since 2000.
Part of the reason that Secretary of State Karen Handel can say that Georgia has no voting rights problems is that the minor parties in Georgia have not been actively agitating about the problem.
What happened to that Georgia Voter Choice project I heard about a few years back?
Also it would seem that the court has distanced itself from its early treatment of suffrage and standing and political express as fundamental rights.
Sorry – there is NO time limit on when the Supremes act on anything.
They may just punt and ask for more arguments for next fall.
Perhaps the GA small parties can get a lawyer with some brains who is able to detect that —
EVERY election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election — i.e. EQUAL ballot access requirements for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.
SOOOOOO difficult for the party hack MORON Supremes to understand ???
In recent years, the Georgia LP decided to stop whining about tough ballot access laws for district offices (state legislature and US House) and to start focusing on running consequential campaigns for statewide and local office. While the Georgia LP does not run as many candidates as other state affiliates, the party has generated a substantial amount of media attention the past several election cycles. I once lived in a state with much easier ballot access and the focus for the state LP in that state was on the quantity of candidates fielded, rather than on quality and professionalism. The tough ballot access laws force the Georgia LP to focus on certain races. In my opinion, this focus produces a better candidate recruitment process and more professional campaigns.
“Whining” is not a good synonym for lobbying for basic rights. Because the Georgia Libertarian Party did a good job of lobbying in 1986, it got an election law that lets it be on the statewide ballot. It wasn’t “whining” back in 1986, it was hard work, but immensely useful work. Why can’t the Georgia LP do now, what it did so well 23 years ago?
Furthermore, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is one of those state LP’s that runs lots of candidates. In 1992, when it was a qualified party, it ran 89 candidates for state office, and 4 of them were elected. Again, in 1994, it ran 104 candidates for state office, and two of them were elected. In 2000, it ran 42 candidates for state office, and one of them was elected.
In 1980, when the Alaska Libertarian Party was not a qualified party and had to petition for each nominee, it ran 14 candidates for state office and elected two of them. There is a strong correlection between a minor party winning seats in a state legislature, and that party running lots of candidates for the state legislature. The Georgia legislature hasn’t run any candidates for the legislature since 2004, because of the ballot access laws. The Georgia LP is very well-organized, and I tend to think if it had had ballot access for legislative races ever since 1988, it might have won a seat by now. After all, it had a candidate in 2008 for statewide partisan office who carried Atlanta.
Richard Winger: Your words, my thots! Activists using such terms [‘whinning’] are like blacks calling other blacks ‘niger’ —- self destructive and counter productive!
—— Donald Raymond Lake
I really do not appreciate the use of racist language and or slurs. We do not need such bigotry here.
Personally, I known third party members who are more willing to complain about ballot access, then do something about it. In that case it may be whining…
Third parties in MN, ND and SD have been pretty unwilling to work together on a ballot acccess law reform project.