The Georgia ballot access lawsuit, Coffield v Kemp, now has a case number in the U.S. Supreme Court, 10-596. The case challenges Georgia procedures for minor party or independent candidates for U.S. House to get on the ballot. Those procedures have been in place since 1964, and they have never been used. They require a petition of 5% of the number of registered voters. The petition must be notarized. The candidate must also pay a filing fee of 3% of the office’s annual salary, which must be paid several weeks before the petition itself is due. The petition is due in July and cannot be circulated earlier than January of the election year.
The last time anyone successfully completed a 5% petition for U.S. House in Georgia was in 1964, but back in 1964, the signatures did not need to be notarized, the petition was not due until October, all signatures were deemed to be valid. Also, in 1964 and earlier years, congressional boundaries in Georgia followed county lines. One of the most difficult aspects of petitioning for U.S. House in Georgia is that in recent decades, the boundaries of the districts have been very complicated and irregular. The few instances in which anyone tried to petition in Georgia for district office have invariably meant that even turning in twice as many signatures as the legal requirement does not mean success. In 2002 the Libertarian Party tried very hard to qualify in one district, and turned in double the requirement, but was told that the petition lacked sufficient valid signatures.
Another reason petitioning is difficult in Georgia is that ordinary voters are not accustomed to being asked to sign petitions. The state lacks procedures for initiative and referendum petitions, so Georgians never see those petitions. Georgia candidates obtain a place on Republican and Democratic primary ballots by paying a filing fee, not by petitioning, so Georgia voters never see primary petitions either. Because petitioning is such rare activity in Georgia, almost no commercial property owner is willing to allow petitioners on its property, and many voters are puzzled when they are asked to sign a ballot access petition. Statewide candidate petitions in Georgia require 1%, not 5%, and even statewide petitions are very tough in Georgia. No statewide petition has succeeded since 2000, when Pat Buchanan has general election public funding and was able to hire the job done. In 2010, two statewide independent candidates tried and failed to get on the ballot. One was Ray Boyd, who wanted to run for Governor; another was Brad Bryant, who wanted to run to keep his job as State Schools Superintendent.
Separate is still NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Education 1954
taking note of Sherman’s march thru GA in late 1864 — part of the cost to get the 13th, 14th and 15th Amdts.
Richard, any word on when this will actually come up in court?
If Georgia chooses to file a response, it is due December 6. But the state may waive its right to file a response.
The precedent set in Timmons v. Twin City Area New Party makes me cringe. The Court there basically said that a state can do almost anything it wants to hold a two-party system because a two-party system is so “stable.” Here are some excerpts from that case:
“States also have a strong interest in the stability of their political systems. [n.10] Eu, supra, at 226; Storer, supra, at 736. This interest does not permit a State to completely insulate the two party system from minor parties’ or independent candidates’ competition and influence, Anderson, supra, at 802; Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), nor is it a paternalistic license for States to protect political parties from the consequences of their own internal disagreements. Eu, supra, at 227; Tashjian, 479 U. S., at 224. That said, the States’ interest permits them to enact reasonable election regulations that may, in practice, favor the traditional two party system, see Burnham Declaration, App. 12 (American politics has been, for the most part, organized around two parties since the time of Andrew Jackson), and that temper the destabilizing effects of party splintering and excessive factionalism. The Constitution permits the Minnesota Legislature to decide that political stability is best served through a healthy two party system. See Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 107 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“The stabilizing effects of such a [two party] system are obvious”); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 144-145(1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“There can be little doubt that the emergence of a strong and stable two party system in this country has contributed enormously to sound and effective government”); Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 532 (1980) (Powell, J., dissenting) (“Broad based political parties supply an essential coherence and flexibility to the American political scene”). And while an interest in securing the perceived benefits of a stable two party system will not justify unreasonably exclusionary restrictions, see Williams, supra, at 31-32, States need not remove all of the many hurdles third parties face in the American political arena today.” . . .
“We conclude that the burdens Minnesota’s fusion ban imposes on the New Party’s associational rights are justified by “correspondingly weighty” valid state interests in ballot integrity and political stability. [n.13] In deciding that Minnesota’s fusion ban does not unconstitutionally burden the New Party’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, we express no views on the New Party’s policy based arguments concerning the wisdom of fusion.”
Stevens’ dissent in that case pointed out some of the craziness. He basically accused the Court of being activist. This political stability argument that the Court raised was not advocated in the petitioner’s brief. In fact, in oral argument, it’s the Court that brought this up, not the petitioner.
Let’s hope the Court has since been taking time aside to read Douglas Amy. Amy’s work includes bashing this decision with zeal. These types of laws are an abomination to democracy and I really hope the Court changes its tune. I can only hope that the Court recognizes the burden placed on candidates in Georgia is much greater than the third party in Minnesota–so much so as to effectively remove and not just impose on their 1st and 14th amendment rights. Otherwise, we can count on third parties continuing to get screwed by ballot access laws.
I am glad to see that progress is being made.
P.R. and App.V. = stability
— not the EVIL madness of UNSTABLE gerrymander party hack gangs — who claim 100 percent mandates from Hell.
—-
The main UNEQUAL SCOTUS party hack ballot access cases —
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971)
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986)
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992)
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. ____ (2008)
40 years of EVIL party hacks at work — inventing all sorts of MORON stuff out of their XXXXX. Solve for XXXXX.
The Jenness case came from GA and was done by MORON lawyers.
Deja vu all over again in the Coffield case ???
This is the kind of landscape change that is needed, not to make our elections a wild free-for-all, but to facilitate legitimate non-Party-filtered candidates and their supporters having reasonable competitive opportunity. Eventually, just the existence of a sincere alternative non-Party avenue will provide a reforming influence on the parties themselves to put out better and more responsive product. Jeff Anderson, in Georgia’s 11th U.S. Congressional District just went through the full independent effort, from consideration of a primary run, to the ballot petition try, to a write in. As a very current and complete example of what is wrong in Georgia and what it causes, his story can be found on the JeffAnderson2010.com Blog and campaign Facebook.
Pingback: Jeff Anderson 2010 Blog » Blog Archive » Supreme Court to look at Georgia BALLOT ACCESS issue