On January 11, the Michigan Attorney General filed a 30-page brief in the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing that the Supreme Court should not hear the Socialist Party’s ballot access case.
The Socialist Party’s strongest legal point is that the state requires substantially more signatures to get a new (or previously unqualified) party on the ballot, than it requires votes for an already-established party to remain on the ballot. In 2010, the Socialist Party needed 38,024 signatures to get on the ballot, but a party that was already on the ballot in 2010 only needed 16,083 votes for any statewide race to remain on the ballot. In Williams v Rhodes, the U.S. Supreme Court had said one reason the old Ohio ballot access laws for new parties were unconstitutional is that a new party needed petition signatures of 15% of the last gubernatorial vote to get on, but an old party needed a 10% vote (a lesser percentage) for Governor to remain on. The Michigan Attorney General’s brief does not mention Williams v Rhodes.
The Attorney General’s brief says, “A petition signature requirement is arguably more predictable and reliable, and thus, less burdensome, than a voting requirement.”
Separate is still NOT equal — even in frozen / depopulated Michigan.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — NOT brought up in Williams 1968.
Each election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election — except for the number of voters in the prior election in the various election areas.
ANY brain cells in the heads of the S.P. lawyers ???
On a procedural note . . . the state’s brief was filed three weeks after it was due under Michigan Court Rules — and accordingly, SPMI has filed a motion to strike that brief.