On August 4, U.S. District Court Judge Roberto A. Lange upheld several South Dakota ballot access laws, in a one-sided opinion that did not even mention the precedents most on-point. Constitution Party of South Dakota v Nelson, cv10-3011. Here is the 27 page order.
The party’s chief complaint is that the state requires a member of the party who is running for statewide office to obtain 250 signatures of party members, in order to get on the party’s primary ballot. The Constitution Party only has 315 registered voters in the state. Three other cases on the subject of how to handle this issue are not even mentioned in the decision. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Storer v Brown that courts are supposed to evaluate ballot access requirements by calculating the number of required signatures as a percentage of the number of eligible signers. The Storer decision does not say that the candidate is supposed to take efforts to increase the number of eligible signers. For example, in the Storer case, independent candidates were not permitted to obtain the signatures of people who voted in a partisan primary. The Supreme Court did not say the candidate is supposed to persuade voters not to vote in the primary. But Judge Lange in his opinion says the party should increase its registration, even though the party already showed it has voter support by submitting 8,389 valid signatures to qualify as a party this year.
The other three cases on the subject of how to handle primary petitions when a party has a very small number of registered voters are from Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Maine. The South Dakota opinion does not even mention them. The Pennsylvania and Arizona cases resulted in the laws being struck down. The Maine decision did not strike down the number of signatures, but said a party in Maine is free to give up its qualified status and its primary, and simply place its nominees on the general election ballot, with the party label, by using the independent petition.
The South Dakota decision depends on New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres, a case from the U.S. Supreme Court which upheld a law requiring candidates for delegate to a party nominating convention to get approximately 2% or 3% of the party members to sign a petition. But, the political parties in that case supported the difficult petition requirements. The South Dakota decision does not mention this crucial distinction.
And, in a very basic error, the Court said the Constitution Party and all the other South Dakota plaintiffs in the case don’t have standing. It is basic practice that when a court rules the plaintiffs don’t have standing, the court should not adjudicate the constitutional issues in the case. If the plaintiffs don’t have standing, the court should simply note that and make no determination about the constitutional issues in the case.
On top of everything else, the judge upheld the March petition deadline for a new party to submit its petition, and did not mention any precedents that strike down such deadlines, including two 8th circuit precedents. And he upheld the ban on out-of-state circulators.
SD is one more gerrymander State created with a low-low-low population by the Elephants in the late 1800s.
Abolish the U.S.A. Senate NOW.
P.R. NOW.
At his point the S.D. Constitution Party needs to register an overwhelming number of people into its party.
But if the decision in the NY case speaks about 2-3% of the party’s members, based on 315 members, it would require between 6 and 9 signatures of party members for a statewide petition.
The SD Constitution Party should also try to get some of those who signed their petition to become full fledged party members.
There’s nothing wrong with a petition requirement of 6 signatures. Current South Dakota law requires 5 signatures on a petition to get a legislative candidate on a small party’s primary ballot. Great Britain requires 10 signatures on a petition (plus a filing fee) to get on the ballot to run for House of Commons. Tennessee only requires 25 signatures for anyone running for anything, and no filing fee.
Since there seems to be lots of flaws in this decision is it going to be appealed?
Political parties do not mediate elections for the House of Commons in the UK. Until fairly recently, party names did not appear on ballot at all, and now serve more of an endorsement than anything else. So elections for the House of Commons most closely resemble those in Washington and in California after January 1, 2011.
It should not be surprising that ballot access in those States is as easy as in the UK.
You don’t really think that Elections Code 8606 is not severable do you?
I fail to see the comparison between the top two process in CA and WA with parliamentary elections in the UK. From what returns I have seen there are more than two candidates on the ballot in each constituency.
Jim Riley’s comments are usually factually accurate. His comment #6 falls short of his usual standard. House of Commons elections have been very partisan elections for hundreds of years. British parties choose their nominees by any means they wish, but it is usually by party meeting. The Labour Party long had special roles for labor unions in its process.
Ballot access is not easy in Washington or California. No one can get on the election ballot without, on the average, 30% voter support. Washington and California have the most restrictive ballot access since Ohio’s rules 1953-1968.
#7 There are 293 candidates for 123 legislative seats.
#8 House of Commons elections are not mediated by political parties. Individual candidates file for election, just like they do in Washington, and will soon do in California. Political parties are free to recruit and support candidates, just like in Washington and California. The UK will hold a referendum next Spring on whether to switch from FPTP to a runoff procedure that is effectively equivalent to the procedure used in Washington and California (coming soon!).
All political parties in Great Britain are allowed on the ballot in Great Britain. In Washington state in 2008, only Democrats and Republicans were allowed on the ballot for all statewide offices and all congressional races.
Also, in Great Britain, party label on the ballot means the party nominated that candidate. Party labels on the ballot in Washington don’t say anything except that the candidate wants to be associated with that party.
#9 post confuses me further. 293 candidates for 123 legislative seats? What nation are you talking about? The UK or WA and CA combined?
#10 Registration of political parties is fairly recent in the United Kingdom. Separate party registries are maintained for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, though parties may register on both. In addition, parties may register for parts of Great Britain: England, Scotland, and Wales. For example, the Scottish Nationalist Party may not appear on the ballot in England. So it is not quite accurate that all political parties in Great Britain are allowed on the ballot.
In 2008 in Washington, candidates who preferred the Constitution, Democratic, Green, Independent, Libertarian, Party of Commons, Reform, and Republican parties, as well as those who expressed no preference were on the ballot for either congressional or statewide office or both.
Sam Reed proposed a system of party registration similar to that in the United Kingdom, but the Forces of FUD blocked its passage by the legislature.
#11 293 candidates for 123 legislative seats in Washington. California does not switch to Open Primaries until January 1, 2011.
#12 Candidates other than the Democrats and Republicans were on the primary ballot for statewide office and Congress, but not on the general election ballot. The only non-duopoly candidates who made it past the primary got in by default; they were one of the only two candidates running for a State Legislative seat.
#13 So? Neither was Don Hansler, who finished 3rd in the primary for the Superintendent of Public Instruction, receiving more votes than any other statewide candidate who was not running as a Democrat or Republican.
#13 “So?”
So I want more than just Democrats and Republicans on the general election ballot.
Technically, the August event in Washington state is not even an election. No one can be elected at it. An “election” is something that can “elect” someone. All the August event is, in Washington, is a ballot access barrier.
#15 Do you want someone beside just Democrats and Republicans to be elected, or would you be mollified if they merely appeared on the ballot?
#16 Do you think that the US Supreme Court will overturn Smith v Allwright on grounds that the August event in Texas was technically not even an “election”?
#17 I would prefer elected, but I would be mollified by their appearance on the ballot.
#16 Election = making choices — preliminary or final — all part of the *election* system/process.
#18 They do appear on the ballot. The reason that no no candidates who were not Republicans or Democrats did not advance to the general election was not because of their party affiliation, but that they didn’t finish in the Top 2, the same reason that the 3rd place candidate in the Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate did not appear on the ballot.