On March 18, North Carolina filed this response brief in Greene v Bartlett, the case pending in U.S. District Court over the state’s ballot access laws for independent candidates for U.S. House. They are so severe, they have never been used for U.S. House, in the entire history of government-printed ballots in North Carolina. North Carolina has used government-printed ballots since 1901.
The brief depends on three separate points. First, North Carolina is in danger of having a crowded ballot if the law is eased. The brief says that 10 statewide state offices are elected in presidential election years, which makes for an overly-crowded ballot. Of course, in midterm years, North Carolina doesn’t elect any statewide offices, except sometimes a U.S. Senate seat is up. If the state is serious about this argument, one would expect that the law would provide for easier ballot access for independents in midterm years than in presidential years.
Second, North Carolina says that even though no independent for U.S. House has ever qualified, 80 independents have qualified since 1992 for State House, and for county office. The law requires independent candidates for district and county office to submit a petition of 4% of the number of registered voters. Of course, there is a big difference between submitting between 15,000 and 20,000 valid signatures (which are required in each U.S. House district in North Carolina), versus qualifying as an independent in a small population county, in which the 4% formula may require as few as 150 signatures. It is significant that the state can’t find even one instance when an independent qualified for State Senate.
Finally, the state says that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 in Jenness v Fortson upheld petition requirements of 5% of the number of registered voters, in Georgia. This is true. However, the Court noted in Jenness that a petitioning candidate had successfully qualified in each of the two previous elections before Jenness v Fortson was filed. Clearly, the Supreme Court never meant to endorse a ballot access law that is so difficult, it is never used or virtually never used.
The state also raises procedural objections, saying the plaintiff, Bryan E. Greene, only submitted 805 signatures. However, three times, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted standing for plaintiffs in ballot access cases who had submitted no signatures whatsoever. They are the Socialist Labor Party of Ohio in 1968, in Williams v Rhodes; Gus Hall in 1972 in California, in Storer v Brown; and Jim Lendall, independent candidate for the legislature in Arkansas in 1976 (he won a lower court ruling against the independent candidate deadline, and the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed it; when he brought the case he had not submitted any signatures).
Separate is still NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
A BASIC point NOT brought up by the MORON lawyers in Williams, Jenness, etc. etc.
Result — A mere 42 years of MORON ballot access cases in the party hack Supremes — going on a zillion years ???
EQUAL nominating petitions for ALL candidates —
EQUAL as in EQUAL protection in the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1
Way too difficult for MORON lawyers and judges to understand.
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V.
It amazes me the brazeness of the NC Attorney General and the State. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they state makes this statement:
“By contrast to Georgia’s statutory framework, North Carolina requires only signatures equal in amount to 4% of registered voters in the district as of January 1, and it gives potential candidates essentially one and one-half years to gather signatures.”
Since when did from January 1 of 2008, to June 27 of 2008 become one and one half years? Isn’t that more like 178 days, only 48.8% of ONE year, or only HALF a year? Beyond this the State says in their brief:
“Plaintiffs assert in their brief to this Court that they have a ‘fundamental right[] . . . to promote Bryan Greene’s candidacy.’ This assertion is, of course, absurd.”
NC used to have ballot access and also Fusion.
See the History of Fusion Politics in North Caroloina here:
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/58/entry
One of the most interesting aspects of Populist-Republican Fusion rule was the service of African American office holders. There were approximately 1,000 elected or appointed black officials, including Congressman George H. White (1852-1918). Although black Tar Heels were still underrepresented, the presence of black officials troubled Democratic white supremacists.
In the 1898 “White Supremacy Campaign,†led by future U.S. Senator Furnifold M. Simmons (1854-1940), chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, the Democratic Party used identity politics to regain power.
…
Shortly after a resounding victory, Democrats disfranchised African Americans and thereby ended a possible Republican resurgence.
…
Oh, I especially like argument 1B, wherein the State claims that the high bar they set should be used to measure the standing of persons who fail to meet the requirements.
As an analogy, the state is claiming that because an eight inch obstacle is the tallest you could surmount in your wheelchair, you have no standing to ask the court to ban the statewide implementation of forty-foot walls from in front of fire escapes.
Thanks Bryan for the analogy, I really like that. I am planning to do a short write-up on this and would like to know if I could possibly consider using that analogy?
As to the state’s argument that candidates have one and one-half years to petition, the state probably means that independent candidates are free to start petitioning even before anyone can know exactly how many signatures will be needed. And it is true, registration data doesn’t change that much from one year to the next, generally.
True Mr. Winger, but the actual number are not available until January 1 of the election year, so the candidate cannot know the exact number. Should it be allowable or correct in a court case, to say that just because a petition has no actual time limit that it is 1.5 years when the number is not officially known until around 175 (or so) says prior to the deadline?