Election law Professor Rick Hasen says in his ElectionLawBlog that the June 24 opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court in Doe v Reed will help ballot access lawsuits. He writes, “It seems to me that the majority opinion silently overrules earlier cases, Burdick v Takushi and Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party, rejecting the idea that voting is a form of First Amendment protective activity. The Court in those cases said that ballots are not fora for political expression. I expect various plaintiffs in ballot access cases and elsewhere will try to use the Doe discussion of voting and related activities as protected by the First Amendment to argue for increased access to the ballot.”
Burdick v Takushi, a 1992 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld Hawaii’s practice of not providing any space on ballots for write-in votes. Burdick v Takushi says on page 438, “Attributing to elections a more generalized expressive function would undermine the ability of States to operate elections fairly and efficiently.” Also, on page 441, “The objection to the specific ban on write-in voting amounts to nothing more than the insistence that the State record, count, and publish individual protests against the election system or the choices presented on the ballot through the efforts of those who actively participate in the system. There are other means available, however, to voice such generalized dissension from the electoral process.”
Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party, on page 363, says, “Ballots serve primarily to elect candidates, not as fora for political expression.”
By contrast, today’s Doe v Reed decision says about petitions, on page six, “Respondents (the state) counter that signing a petition is a legally operative legislative act and therefore does not involve any significant expressive element. It is true that signing a referendum petition may ultimately have the legal consequence of requiring the secretary of state to place the referendum on the ballot. But we do not see how adding such legal effect to an expressive activity somehow deprives that activity of its expressive component, taking it outside the scope of the First Amendment…Petition signing remains expressive even when it has legal effect.”
If voting, and signing a petition, are both expressive activity, then they are protected by the free speech part of the First Amendment, and have substantial protection.
Strangely enough, Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurrence says, “We have acknowledged the existence of a First Amendment interest in voting” and then cites to Burdick v Takushi, but he doesn’t provide a page number within Burdick v Takushi to support that conclusion. I have just re-read Burdick v Takushi and I don’t see anything in Burdick v Takushi that supports the idea that Burdick v Takushi agrees that voting is protected by the First Amendment. Maybe another reader can find something.
Burdick v Takushi start of Section III.
Indeed, the foregoing leads us to conclude that, when a State’s ballot access laws pass constitutional muster as imposing only reasonable burdens on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The Burdick decision did not express particular concern about random political expression (eg a protest vote for ‘Donald Duck’) and determined that a ban on write-in voting did not present a significant burden on a 1st Amendment Right of Political Association, since voters could easily band to gather to qualify a candidate for the ballot.
“By contrast, today’s Doe v Reed decision says about petitions, on page six, “Respondents (the state) counter that signing a petition is a legally operative legislative act and therefore does not involve any significant expressive element. It is true that signing a referendum petition may ultimately have the legal consequence of requiring the secretary of state to place the referendum on the ballot. But we do not see how adding such legal effect to an expressive activity somehow deprives that activity of its expressive component, taking it outside the scope of the First Amendment…Petition signing remains expressive even when it has legal effect.””
This says that “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is a protected First Amendment right — even if, as in the case in Washington, where the petition is part of the formal political process. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that there is a similar relationship with regard to voting in elections, and non-formal political expression.
This is the New Age of party hack Supremes.
Each opinion is an ad hoc piece of JUNK — in conflict with all sorts of earlier JUNK opinions.
Result – keeps the law reviews, law school profs, lower court judges and lawyers in a growing state of total chaos.
—-
When did ANY petitions for candidates and/or issues come along ???
—
The party hack Supremes love the adjective *reasonable* in all sorts of their ad hoc JUNK irrational opinions — making all sorts of alleged *constitutional rights* subject to all sorts of party hack laws and regulations that destroy such *rights*.
See the use of *reasonable* in the Doe opinion connected with possible/ *probable* death threats and murders regarding unpopular issue petitions.
Opponents – sign the XYZ petition and you will be killed !!!
How many *reasonable* folks will sign the XYZ petition ???
Even the originator of the XYZ petition ???
P.R. and App.V. NOW — including the election of the Supremes — to get rid of the more senile MORONS on the court.
IN THE STATE OF VERMONT, AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE
MAY CHOSE DESCRIPTIVE WORDS TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT,
RATHER THAN “INDEPENDENT”,
AND SO THIS IS A FORM OF
VOTER REFERENDUM.
From: crisericson@aceweb.com [crisericson@aceweb.com]
Sent: 6/25/2010 8:57:15 AM
To: jboppjr@aol.com [jboppjr@aol.com]; kdewolfe@sec.state.vt.us [kdewolfe@sec.state.vt.us]; kHamilton@perkinscoie.com [kHamilton@perkinscoie.com]; lrw@witherspoonkelley.com [lrw@witherspoonkelley.com]; judyg@atg.wa.gov [judyg@atg.wa.gov]; billc@atg.wa.gov [billc@atg.wa.gov]
Cc: jonathan.albano@bingham.com [jonathan.albano@bingham.com]
Subject: Marijuana Party on Ballot needs attorney
To:
Attorney for Petitioners
Docket # 09-559
Supreme Court of the U.S.
Doe v. Reed
James Bopp, Jr.
and
Other Party name, MA Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus
Jonathan M. Albano
DEAR SIRS:
Hi! My name is Cris Ericson and I am on the official election
ballot in the State of Vermont for two offices:
Cris Ericson, UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY,
for Governor of VT 2010
and
Cris Ericson, UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY for
UNITED STATES SENATOR FOR VERMONT 2010.
MY BALLOT ACCESS PETITIONS FOR NOMINATION
HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED
MAY 17, 2010.
I THOUGHT THE GOOD VERMONT VOTERS WHO SIGNED
MY PETITIONS
HAD A RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
I SIGNED MY PETITIONS ALSO.
WILL SECRETARY OF STATE, DEBORAH MARKOWITZ,
WHO IS ALSO RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR
(CONFLICT OF INTEREST?)
SELL MY PETITIONS TO THE F.B.I., D.E.A., ETC.
AND NOT HERS?
WILL SECRETARY OF STATE, DEBORAH MARKOWITZ,
WHO IS ALSO RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR
(CONFLICT OF INTEREST?)
SELL COPIES OF MY PETITIONS TO CORPORATIONS
AND NON-PROFITS AND INDIVIDUALS,
BUT NOT HER OWN?
THIS RAPE OF PRIVACY
MAY KEEP ME FROM EVER GETTING
THE UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY ON THE BALLOT
EVER AGAIN!
CITIZENS WILL BE TOO AFRAID TO SIGN MY PETITIONS!
I NEED AN ATTORNEY NOW TO FILE WHAT EVER IT IS
CALLED TO GET AN EXCEPTION TO THE LAW FOR ME
AND VERMONT VOTERS!
I NEED A PRO BONO ATTORNEY.
I TOTALLY QUALIFY FOR AN INFORMA PAUPERIS FORM,
BUT I DO NOT KNOW THE PROCEDURE IN THIS INSTANCE,
AND READ ON THE NEWS THAT ANY EXCEPTIONS MUST
BE FILED
IMMEDIATELY!
PLEASE CONSIDER TAKING MY CASE PRO BONO OR
HELPING ME TO FIND AN ATTORNEY.
I HAVE DIAL UP INTERNET.
PLEASE REPLY OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL,
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT
WITH ATTORNEY CONSENT FORM.
CRIS ERICSON http://USMJP.COM
Official campaign website: http://crisericson.com
Vermont Secretary of State http://www.sec.state.vt.us
click on Elections, click on Independent candidates
for the General Election.
Putting the “United States Marijuana party”
on the ballot
is the same as a VOTER REFERENDUM,
because under
Vermont law,
an independent candidate may chose
descriptive words,
and have the descriptive words
appear on the official election ballot rather than
independent.
cc: Kathy DeWolfe, attorney for Secretary of State
James Bopp, Jr. Attorney for Petitioners
William B. Collins Attorneys for Respondents
Kevin J. Hamilton
Leslie R. Weatherhead
Robert M. McKenna
Other party name: Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus
Jonathan M. Albano
SINCERELY,
CRIS ERICSON
879 CHURCH STREET
CHESTER, VERMONT 05143-9375
(802)875-4038
crisericson@aceweb.com