On May 20, a Superior Court in Charlotte, North Carolina, heard Brody v North Carolina State Board of Elections, 10cvs-3216. At the end of the hearing, the Judge ruled against Mark Brody, the independent candidate. The issue was whether, if an independent candidate polled a substantial share of the vote in the previous election, and he or she runs again for the same office in the following election, whether the state should take cognizance of that candidate’s prior support, and put him on the ballot without a petition.
Mark Brody polled slightly over 30% in November 2008 as an independent candidate, so he argued that he should not be required to submit another petition in 2010. The state said he must submit 2,367 valid signatures from his state house district, and pay the filing fee, notwithstanding the evidence of support for him from 2008. Brody was willing to pay the fee. It is not known if he will appeal. Thanks to Jordan Greene for the news.
In fact, under NC law, he could have WON that election, yet need to go through the petition process again this year.
Anyone up for sending me their suggestions on a possible threshold or way of determining an independent candidate’s method of ballot access retention in NC? Send me, Jordon, your ideas to jmgreene@ncfpe.com
I was glad to see mr.Brody take the chance with the courts,but we have to get the general statute changed.The sboe is only following the law.I believe if the conservative people (not politicians) take both houses of the legislator.now we need someone who can afford to file suit against the sboe to have the straight party boxes removed because it provides an unfair advantage for republicans,and democrats against the unafiliated and libratarians so it should be unconstitutional.if we can get this changed we can take back the house.I feel that this will also help do away with un educated voters.
An interesting idea that I feel has merit. One of the major legit state interests in ballot access law is to ensure that candidates have a modicum of support. Since this candidate has demonstrated that he has such support in the recent past, I would believe that he should be listed on the ballot.
Separate is still NOT equal – in ALL States.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — NOT brought up in the many MORON ballot access cases since 1968.
Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with ANY prior election stuff.
Too difficult for the party hack Supremes to understand ???
EQUAL nominating petitions.
P.R. and App.V.
NO primaries are needed.