Arizona has registration by party. Traditionally, the voter registration form section for “Party Preference” has just consisted of a blank line, and anyone filling out the form can write in the name of a party. Voters who leave it blank are classed as independents.
This year, the legislature passed HB 2701, dealing with voter registration. It says that the voter registration form shall list the two largest political parties, based on existing voter registration data. So, the new form has three checkboxes: “Republican”, “Democratic”, and “Other”. Under the “Other” box is a line that is only eleven-sixteenths of an inch long, and only one-eighth of an inch tall.
During the last 30 years, and perhaps all the way back to the beginning of voter registration forms, no state previously printed voter registration forms that list some parties that are entitled to their own primary, but not all parties that are entitled to their own primary. Therefore, there is no case law on whether a form like this violates equal protection. The form is especially unfair to Libertarians, because a person with normal handwriting could not even fit the word “Libertarian” into a space that small. Similarly, it is difficult to fit the word “independent” into that space. However, presumably, if a voter leaves the entire section blank, that voter will be classed as an independent.
Besides the two major parties, the Americans Elect, Green, and Libertarian Parties are entitled to a primary in 2012 in Arizona.
Maybe this is an instance of the two major parties working together. See, its possible! Of course, they are doing it in a way that gives them advantages over third parties and independents. Offering but two choices suggests that only two choices exist, and the tiny space also puts suggestive pressure on registrants to take the easy way and select one of the two — the two-party system wins again!
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter: wjkno1
Too difficult to have a separate 3×5 form for the party stuff — in party hack robot regimes ???
———-
P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries — NO party registration (aka PURGE lists).
Isn’t this new law a burden on freedom of association? The old law seemed to respect that freedom. But the new law seems to burden that freedom by restricting the choices to two, and by discouraging write-ins by providing such a constricted space. If so, there is a 1st Amnd issue as well as a 14th Amnd issue.
I think that only nonpartisan registration fully respects the freedom of association. The state has no legitimate interest in burdening that freedom by requiring people to declare affiliation with some label. Free thinking people shouldn’t be pinned down by such a public record.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter: wjkno1
In court, Arizona will have to assert some sort of “legitimate state interest”, presumably an interest in preventing “overcrowding” of the registration form. I’m sorry I don’t live in Arizona. I’d like to be the plaintiff in this one.
Note to Demo Rep : Please, again, I want to know what you are drinking. I will go out and buy ome if you tell me what it is . Kindly advise & thanks .
# 5 100 percent Democracy juice.
See the many parties in the various foreign P.R. regimes — esp Israel and New Zealand.
One result in Israel – ALL folks fight to the death to defend the Democracy regime — against the killer monarchy/oligarchy regimes surrounding the nation
— both Israel and NZ P.R. systems are about 95 percent accurate (due to a min. quota to get a seat).
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes to get a Seat — regardless of ALL math morons having a fixation with gerrymander area districts.
The new forms in Idaho only list the 4 qualified parties (the law took effect July 1).
Michigan doesn’t have voter registration by party — but it does have partisan identification for “election inspectors” (poll-workers) . . . but the application forms usually only have check boxes for the “Big Two”. Sometimes, if supporters of other parties are lucky, we get an “Other” spot where we can (read: have to) write in our parties’ names.
On September 11, 2001 (!), a New Jersey appellate court issued a ruling that’s probably the most relevant to the analysis that a court would undertake here:
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2001/a5698-99-opn.html
Or do you know a more relevant decision?
I would hope some plaintiff representing the three parties (who otherwise seem similarly situated with the two major parties) would sue in federal court.
#9, there are five decisions like the New Jersey one you mention. Besides New Jersey, they are from Colorado, Oklahoma, Iowa, New York, and North Carolina. But the issue in those cases were forms that made it literally impossible for voters to register into an unqualified party.
That is a separate issue from forms that discriminate against qualified parties, but which don’t make it impossible for a voter to register into any party he or she wants.
Form stuff —
Separate is still NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
Way too difficult for ballot access lawyer MORONS to understand ???
Richard, obviously cases like these are not exactly on point, but they present — using the US SCt caselaw — the standards. It seems as if, dependent upon the provision challenged, the level of scrutiny and thus the burden on the state, varies a bit. It’s about a dozen years since I last taught constitutional law and almost two decades since I did a bit of research on election law as a staff attorney in social policy at the University of Florida’s Center for Governmental Responsibility, but I would imagine that a challenge to this provision of the Arizona law would have enough merit that it’s definitely not a frivolous undertaking.
Who would want to be a plaintiff is another matter. The Arizona Green Party didn’t hesitate much to sue me and other candidates it labeled “sham” in federal court a year ago, as you recall, but I suspect it has no interest in challenging this. The Americans Elect Party, I’m sure, is fine with it since they are just looking at a sure ballot line for the 2012 presidential race and don’t really want people registered with the party (as I mentioned in a prior comment, this would lead to people registering as members of the party and then getting the minimal number of signatures or running as a write-in on the AEP’s ballot line; it would be very easy for anyone to be the Americans Elect Party candidate for US Senator next year).
The Libertarians, as your post suggests, are the most affected by this provision. (You could write “Green” in less than half the space.) They would be the logical ones to challenge it.
***
On the other hand, after I wrote the paragraph above, I went through the online process as if to change my voter registration just to see what it would say: https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/register?execution=e1s5
When it came to party, it had a drop-down menu that gave me the choice of, yes, all *five* parties or “other.”
That gives me pause. I don’t know what percentage of voters register online but it considerably lowers the burden on the minor parties when they are given totally equal access when someone registers to vote online. I’m not sure the provision would be worth challenging after seeing that.
Thanks, Richard, for your informative reports and analysis.