On August 18, a hearing was held in Socialist Party of Michigan v Land, in Ingham County Circuit court. The judge ruled from the bench that the case should be dismissed because it was filed too late in the election year. It had been filed on July 21, 2010. The decision is not reasonable. It may be that the case was filed too late to place any of the Socialist Party’s candidates on this year’s ballot, but because this is a lawsuit alleging that the Michigan ballot access laws are unconstitutional, the case should have been allowed to proceed.
The case alleges that it is unconstitutional for a state to require more signatures to get a party on the ballot, than votes for an old party to remain ballot-qualified. Michigan’s petition to get a newly-qualifying party on the ballot is 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, but the vote test is 1% of the winning Secretary of State candidate’s vote total. This generally means that the number of signatures is twice as high to get a party on, as the number of votes needed for an old party to remain on. The only other state with numerical tests, in which the number of signatures is significantly higher than the number of votes, is Kansas.
The Socialist Party hasn’t decided whether to appeal, or to just file a new similar case next year.
I can never understand how we (the USA) call ourselves a democracy and claim to spread it when we for the most part only have one more party then China or North Korea.
Each election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election stuff.
Way too difficult for the armies of MORON ballot access lawyers to understand — and especially for super-MORON judges.
Perhaps there might be some excuse for new election tests if the voters are directly asked at each election —
Which party hack parties do you want to see on the ballots in the next election cycle ??? —
Vote for ONE [or even more than ONE]
Party Hacks of Party A
Party Hacks of Party B
etc.