The 11th circuit will hear Coffield v Handel on Thursday, March 4, at 9 a.m. This is the case that challenges Georgia’s ballot access law for independent and minor party candidates for U.S. House, in regular elections. The law is so severe, no one has completed the petition (5% of the number of registered voters) since 1964. Back in 1964, the signatures were not due until October, and did not need to be notarized, and district boundaries didn’t split up counties. So, petitioning was much easier back in 1964, and signatures weren’t even checked.
The plaintiff-candidate, Faye Coffield, tried to get on the 2008 ballot but failed. As a result, the voters in her district, the 4th district, saw a November ballot with only one candidate, the incumbent, Hank Johnson. The 4th district includes most of DeKalb County and part of Gwinnett County.
In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Georgia ballot access laws, but the Court noted that the 5% petition had been used for statewide candidates in both 1966 and 1968, so the Court felt that 5% petitions can’t be that difficult. Oddly enough, the U.S. Supreme Court has never had a case challenging the petition requirements for candidates for the U.S. House. There were two co-plaintiffs running for U.S. House in the 1971 case, but no evidence was submitted in the 1971 case about the difficulties of petitioning in a district. The plaintiffs in the 1971 case, members and candidates of the Socialist Workers Party, had argued that any petition requirement was unconstitutional, so they didn’t present any evidence about petitioning and they hadn’t tried to petition. The 1971 case was called Jenness v Fortson.
The MORON Supremes got off on the wrong foot in Williams v. Rhodes (1968) and compounded the mess in Jenness — due to MORON lawyers and their own MORONITY.
Separate is NOT equal.
Every election is NEW.
NOT detectable by MORONS.
I.E. — ALL of the MORON ballot access cases starting with Williams have to be OVER-RULED — put in the nearest landfill.
EQUAL ballot access nominating petitions at EVERY general [ONLY] election.
P.R. and A.V. – NO primaries are needed.
I hope they help point out that because of these ballot access requirements, a massive number of elected offices and positions are often unchallenged or vacant on the ballot. Case in point, Sandy Springs GA considered canceling the election entirely in 2009 after no challengers were on the ballot. That is a disgrace.
There have been elections in Georgia where more than a third of the races are unopposed. This is also used as a tool, in which the two major parties negotiate which races they won’t challenge in order to steer resources to other races, confident the ballot access restrictions will limit anyone other than the other major party from gaining access to the ballot.