On Thursday, June 17, two important ballot access lawsuits were argued in two different federal courts.

In U.S. District Court in Arkansas, Judge Price Marshall heard Green Party of Arkansas v Daniels. See this story. The story is not is as well-written as it could be. The lawsuit concerns the state’s rules on how a party retains its spot on the ballot, not on how it gets on the ballot. This is a tough case to win, because there is no federal court precedent from any state striking down the requirements for a party to retain its spot on the ballot. A somewhat similar case is pending for the New Mexico Green Party.

Also on June 17, the 9th circuit, meeting in Honolulu, heard Ralph Nader’s case from 2004 that challenges the number of signatures for an independent presidential candidate, which is six times as many signatures as are required for a party to get itself on the ballot. Nader argues that there is no rational reason to make ballot access for a single independent candidate more difficult than for a new party. In Hawaii, when a new party qualifies, the state must print up a primary ballot for it and the party is easily able to run for many partisan offices. If the chief rationale for ballot access restrictions is to keep ballots from being too crowded, the Hawaii policy makes no sense.

Judge Richard Clifton seemed to feel that if a state wants to encourage people to form parties instead of becoming independent candidates, a state may legitimately do that. The other two judges, Betty Fletcher and Harry Pregerson, asked few questions and didn’t seem especially interested in the case. The case is Nader v Cronin, 08-16444. No newspaper seems to have covered the hearing.