On July 1, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed HB 194. This is an omnibus election law bill that, among other things, purports to give Ohio a ballot access law for minor parties that complies with the 2006 decision of the 6th circuit in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell. It sets a petition deadline of early February, the same deadline that was held unconstitutional in Williams v Rhodes by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. The Supreme Court said an early February deadline is “unreasonably early.” However, it is true that the new Ohio deadline is better than the old one of November of the year before the election.
The next step will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether the four minor parties that were ballot-qualified in 2008 and 2010 (Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Socialist) may remain on the 2012 ballot. Former Secretary of State Ted Brown, in analogous circumstances, left parties on the ballot in 1970 and 1972.
“Purports” is stating it lightly. They (the legislature and the governor) made no attempt to make this bill “legal” per your other comments about USC decisions. But after looking up the definition of “purport”, I think you summarized it adequately 😉
It has been stated here and elsewhere, that the Libertarian Party won a lawsuit in 2008 that will be brought up again (maybe not by the LPO…I know that the Green Party has already mentioned a lawsuit).
Let’s see if this SOS is at least as good as the last one (whom I voted for).
Richard did the signature requirement change?
Let’s hope that the SOS gives my LP ballot access! And that the petition deadline date will be moved to a later date.
In Williams v Rhodes, it was the combination of provisions that the Supreme Court found fault with. At the time there was no provision for independent candidate qualification, so to run as a candidate a party had to qualify first.
The phrase “unreasonably early” was actually used in Jenness v Fortson, where the opinion was listing the differences between Ohio law and that in Georgia.
the signature requirement did not change.
Jim Riley, you are repeating the conventional wisdom about Williams v Rhodes, but the conventional wisdom is wrong. Anyone who reads the transcript of the oral argument in the US Supreme Court, and the briefs from the Socialist Labor Party, and the American Independent Party, and ESPECIALLY the Ohio government brief, knows better. Also, I am quoting Jenness v Fortson above. We have already discussed this in comments back and forth. The US Supreme Court in Jenness did not say an early filing deadline was unconstitutional only when the number of signatures is high. It said an early deadline is “unreasonably early”, period. Furthermore, I have several times listed the 15 cases in which lower courts have struck down early petition deadlines for new parties, and they include cases in which the number of signatures was less than 1,000.
Pingback: Ohio Governor Signs HB 194 | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Richard, was the original court ruling just about the petition deadline or the signature requirement as well?
Richard –
Does the USSC ruling require that Diebold change their software to count any votes cast for candidates from those parties?
#7, the 2006 lawsuit challenged the number of signatures as well. The 6th circuit opinion just said the whole package was unconstitutional, and did not discuss the relationship of the two problems complained of, early deadline plus number of signatures.
#8, I do not understand your question. The only US Supreme Court opinions discussed here were in 1968 and 1971, long before electronic vote counting machines existed.
#5 The Supreme Court in Jenness v Fortson included the term “unreasonably early” within a paragraph listing other contrasts between Ohio and Georgia law for a reason. The fact it was a a separate sentence with a period at the end, does not make it a totally distinct and stand-alone criteria. Your juxtaposition of Williams v Rhodes decision with, the “Supreme Court said” leaves the impression that they said that in Williams v Rhodes.
The Ohio case involved a presidential candidate. As Justice Douglas noted in his concurring opinion, it was not sufficient that there were a lot of persons who wanted that person to be their candidate, that support had to be expressed through a political party.
If a State wants to require that political parties nominate by primary, then a party must necessarily qualify prior to the primary. Ohio has a compelling interest that party nominees be chosen by those voters who choose to associate with the party, and not the party bosses.
The BRAIN DEAD MORON SCOTUS retard IDIOTS did NOT note that —
Separate is NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
— in either Williams 1968 and Jenness 1971.
— Too many New Age IDIOTS on SCOTUS too count since 1968 ???
How many black AND white Elephants needed some EQUAL protection in the EVIL rotted ex-slave States in 1868 ???
For New Age folks — once upon a time most Negroes/Blacks were actually Republicans — before 1929 — and the resulting INSANITY in 1929-1941.
#10, Williams v Rhodes involved more candidates than presidential candidates. The Socialist Labor Party candidate for US Senate in Ohio was also a plaintiff.
How was the SLP senate nominee chosen?
#11’s comment has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand here. I am not sure where you got Brown v. Board of Education, and the fact that most blacks were GOP’ers before 1929 in relation to a story on Ohio ballot access.
# 14 The adjective before protection in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 is EQUAL — not *unreasonably early* or other such SCOTUS invented MORON adjectives and adverbs.
EQUAL ballot access requirements — for ALL candidates for the same office in the same election area — difficult ONLY for SCOTUS retard MORON party hack robot judges to understand.
ALL of the MORON SCOTUS ballot access cases since 1968 MUST BE OVER-RULED.
See the 1938 Erie case — overruling about 98 years of UN-constitutional stuff regarding some sort of alleged *federal common law* EVIL nonsense.