On September 20, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Haynes, a Clinton appointee, struck down Tennessee’s laws on how a previously unqualified party can get on the ballot. Libertarian Party of Tennessee v Goins, 3:08-cv-00063. The case had been filed by the Libertarian, Constitution and Green Parties of Tennessee back on January 23, 2008. The decision says that the combination of the early petition deadline, the high number of signatures, and the wording on the petition saying the signers are members, taken together, is too severe.
Tennessee’s law has existed since 1972, and in all the years it has existed, it has never been used. It requires a petition of 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, due four months before the August primary. Parties that have tried and failed to qualify in Tennessee have been the Populist Party of the 1980’s, the Reform Party, the Constitution Party, and the Green Party. The Libertarian Party has never actually tried to qualify because the law is so harsh. Currently, it requires 45,464 signatures.
The decision will have no impact on the 2010 election because the parties had not asked for injunctive relief. Tennessee is in the 6th circuit, and the decision depends partly on the 2006 decision of the Sixth Circuit that had struck down the Ohio ballot access law for new parties. If the state does not appeal, the legislature in 2011 will probably pass a better law. The Tennessee and Ohio laws are very similar; both states require newly-qualifying parties to hold a primary, which is why the deadlines for a new party are so early. Most states, by contrast, provide that newly-qualifying parties may nominate by convention, which makes it possible for those states to have a later petition deadline.
All right! A victory for our side! Whoohoo!
Any idea on what the new requirement will be in Tennessee for a minor party to obtain ballot status?
What century will the MORON courts in ballot access cases detect that —
Separate is NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
The *taken together* / *too severe* stuff is the mindless MORON courts in action.
i.e. NO standards by the MORONS.
Remember the tens of thousands of black and white Union Army and Navy troops who got killed in 1861-1865 – the REAL price to get the 13th, 14th and 15th Amdts ratified.
Something the New Age MORON courts do NOT care about.
I just hope this ruling does not hurt the current law requiring only 25 signatures for an independent candidate for any office – local, statewide, or federal. As I understand, each of the presidential electors for an independent candidate have to obtain 25 signatures each. Still not bad. (Correct me Richard, if I’m wrong)
I hope the supporters of any legislation to facilitate this ruling will suggest filing fees as an option to petitions. Unfortunately, just as there can be a “silver lining in a cloud” sometimes produces just the opposite – a “dark lining in a bright cloud.”
For several recent sessions of the Tennessee legislature, a bill was introduced to provide that new parties need 2,500 signatures, and they would nominate by convention. These bills never made any headway, but they can be re-introduced in 2011.
Why do we have this mindset any legislation to make ballot access more obtainable, can only be obtained by a “reduction of signatures?” What is it about “filing fee in lieu of signatures” does some people not understand?
On behalf of the LPTN, I’d like to personally thank Richard Winger and Attorney Jim Linger for their hard work in this effort. This is a step in the right direction.
Congratulations on overturning this bad law!
Next step is to lobby for a better replacement law.
@5 re: filing fees.
It has always seemed to me that if you have a very low number of signatures required to run for office, as in the independent requirement in TN, then advocating for filing fees tends to be counter productive.
Collecting a small number of signatures is easy, costs the candidate no money, and can actually be turned into useful campaign organizing.
Filing fees always tend to be high, requiring the candidate to have large amounts of personal funds available or pre-campaign fundraising. This tends to preclude a large number of individuals from seeking public office.
Low signature requirements are OK.
We should not advocate for filing fees.
Richard has kicked some statist ass! Way to go bro….Libertarians in Tennessee are beyond grateful for your dedication to the underdog. It couldn’t have happened without your support.
Pingback: Your 2012 Plaid Cymru nominee for the Tennessee 54th is… : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee
Victory in my sister state! Now I hope NC does the same thing. Anyone have a idea when the judges will issue a ruling in NC’s Ballot access case?
“An Alabama Independent Says:
September 21st, 2010 at 3:53 pm
I just hope this ruling does not hurt the current law requiring only 25 signatures for an independent candidate for any office – local, statewide, or federal.”
It actually takes 275 valid petition signatures to get an independent candidate on the ballot for President in Tennessee.
To Andy Says. If you had read my entire post, you’d have seen I acknowledged each presidential elector has to get 25 signatures. I knew it was somewhere around 250 or 275 total. I just didn’t know at the moment I wrote, how many Electors Tennessee has for 2012.
And to Yes Says. I wasn’t speaking of giving the filing fee option to those independent candidates – only the parties. There are still, unfortunately, some out there who don’t know the difference between an independent candidate and a 3rd party candidate.
So any legislation introduced, needs to hopefully address only 3rd party ballot access – not independent candidate access. Most legislators at Nashville understand this – though alot of 3rd partians don’t.