On August 5, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted mailed a letter to the Ohio Libertarian Party, saying he will not keep the Libertarian Party on the ballot for 2012. Obviously, his decision relates to the Constitution, Green, and Socialist Parties as well. Here is the letter.
His letter says he has no authority to keep the parties on the ballot for 2012. He did not mention all the evidence that the Ohio Libertarian Party had presented to him, showing that he does have such authority. Two previous Ohio Republican Secretaries of State, Robert Taft in 1996 and Ted W. Brown in 1971, felt they had such authority. In 1970 the Socialist Labor Party had won a ballot access decision against the petition requirement for new and minor parties, and the judges had put the SLP on the November 1970 ballot. In 1971 the legislature passed a new law, lowering the petition requirement from 7% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1% of the last vote cast. Nevertheless, then-Secretary of State Ted Brown ruled that the SLP should also remain on the ballot for 1972, even though the party had polled less than one-half of 1% for Governor in 1970 and even though the new law required a 5% vote for that office for a party to remain on the ballot. Brown felt it violated due process to eliminate a party during the middle of the petitioning period.
Somewhat similarly, in 1996 then-Secretary of State Robert Taft ruled that even though the Reform Party did not have enough signatures on its party petition by the deadline, he would waive the petition deadline, for any party (including the Reform Party) that just wanted to appear on the November ballot for President and Vice-President, but no other office.
It is very likely that the Ohio Libertarian Party will bring a new lawsuit, very soon, arguing that the new ballot access law passed by the 2011 legislature is just as unconstitutional as the old one that was declared unconstitutional in 2006. The new law requires 38,525 valid signatures by the first week in February 2012, a deadline that the U.S. Supreme Court already invalidated in 1968. In another U.S. Supreme Court decision issued in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the Ohio petition deadline of early February had been “unreasonably early.”
Pingback: Ohio Secretary of State Refuses to Keep Minor Parties on 2012 Ballot | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
GEE — yet another chance to bring up —
Separate is NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 —
to get ALL of the 1968-2011 MORON ballot access SCOTUS cases OVER-RULED.
See O.R.C. Section 3501.50
It is clear that the General Assembly wants to be a party to any litigation, and doesn’t want the SOS making deals.
Federal law regarding mailing of absentee ballots has changed since 1968, as has the date of the primary. A February deadline is not at all unreasonable given the requirement to mail ballots out 45 days before the election. Texas election officials said they needed at least 70 days, and that was for already qualified parties.
Justices Harlan and Black did not join in the opinion of the court in Jenness v Fortson, so you can not claim unanimity in the characterization of the Ohio filing deadline. And as noted previously, the application of “unreasonably early” was in the context of the total circumstances of the Ohio law.
If the primary is in May, and some ballots must be sent out 45 days prior to that (mid-March), then an additional few weeks for ballot preparation, candidate filing, and determining whether a party has qualified is certainly reasonable.
#3, we have discussed this before. Jenness v Fortson didn’t say the filing deadline is “unreasonably early” only if the number of signatures is high. The U.S. Supreme Court did mention some other repressive factors about the Ohio law and did tie those others into totality, but the Court didn’t do that in connection with the deadline. We are to presume that the U.S. Supreme Court knows how to express itself.
Furthermore, in Anderson v Celebrezze, the U.S. Supreme Court said an early petition deadline for independent presidential candidates is unconstitutional even if the number of signatures is only 5,000 signatures, which was about one-tenth of 1% of the number of voters in Ohio.
You are right that the decision was not unanimous, and I appreciate that. I will amend the post.
The federal law on mailing overseas ballots was in place already in September 2010, when a US District Court struck down the Tennessee April petition deadline for new party petitions. How do you explain that?
WHAT??? The @$$hole.
Late-breaking news from Ohio LP.
The “package” has been delivered to the SOS.
More later.
Ohio needs a 2nd party – Demopublicans are 2 sides of the same coin. Borrow and spend or tax and spend, both sides SPEND!
As Patrick Henry said – “Give me Liberty or I’m going back to England” (something along those lines).
http://www.GoAbroad.com
#4 You will note in the Tennessee decision that the judge strongly emphasized the interrelationship between the various election laws, citing the 6th Circuit’s decision in Ohio, which in turn cited Williams.
It was a follow-up to that Ohio case, where the SOS prior to Husted was told by the courts to quit writing election law.
We can presume that when the Supreme Court in Jenness v Fortson cited a laundry list of differences between Georgia and Ohio law that they were doing so to emphasize that it was the combination of factors that was significant, and not the adjectives applied to individual items.
We can presume that the Supreme Court knew how to express itself as equally, if not better, in Williams v Rhodes than in Jenness v Fortson.
The MOVE act was not effective until the November 2010 election. The original MOVE act was a standalone measure, which was never passed, and set a December 31, 2010 effective date. The Senate shoved it into the National Defense Authorization Act passed in September 2009 and changed the effective date.
Since the Tennessee case was in regard to a law written decades before, and was originally filed in January 2008; the MOVE Act was not relevant. Further there was no deadline in Tennessee statute, and the State Coordinator of elections was requiring 120 days, rather than 90 days. Was the district court judge even aware of the MOVE Act?
The judge seemed to put particular emphasis on the requirement on petition signers “be a member of the party”, even though in Tennessee, primaries are limited to party members.
#8, there is good reason to think that the US Supreme Court did not express itself very well in Williams v Rhodes, because the Court only had about 10 days after the hearing to make up its mind and decide the case. By contrast, Jenness v Fortson was argued in February 1971 and the decision wasn’t released until June 1971.
Chief Justice Earl Warren complained in his dissent in Williams v Rhodes that the Court was being rushed into a very important decision with no time for thought.
#9 Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell makes it quite clear that that it was the combination of factors that imposed the unconstitutional burden.
How come NO mention of Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 in both Williams 1968 and Jenness 1971 ???
Duh. ALL of the JUNK MORON 1968-2011 cases must be over-ruled.
See Brown 1954 OVER-ruling racist irrational Plessy 1896 — a mere 58 years earlier.
The word before protection in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 is EQUAL — NOT unreasonably early, totality of circumstances, combination of factors, etc., etc. etc.
How many SCOTUS robot party hack MORONS since 1789 ??? — esp. since Lincoln in 1861 ???
and really since 1929-1941 Great Depression I ???