On December 7, Alabama filed its brief in Shugart v Chapman, the case pending in the 11th circuit over whether a state can require an independent candidate for US House to obtain more signatures than an independent candidate for president.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice, in 1979, and again in 1992, that states cannot require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than for statewide office. Alabama argues that those precedents don’t apply if the statewide office is the office of President.

The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in both 1979 and 1992 that when a state requires more signatures for an office in just part of the state than for a statewide office, that type of disparity is discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court also said in both cases that discriminatory ballot access laws cannot survive unless the state can show that the law is needed for a compelling state interest. But a few months later in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court said that if the law under challenge is not discriminatory, then it can survive if it merely has a rational basis.

Alabama’s brief insists that the rational basis test applies, but the brief does not really address the point that since this case involves a discriminatory ballot access law, the rational basis test does not apply. And, indeed, it seems obvious that if Alabama can get along with 5,000 signatures for an independent candidate for President, there is no compelling state need to require more than 5,000 signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House.