The Ohio Democratic Party to force a referendum on the 2011 omnibus election law bill almost certainly has enough valid signatures. It is very likely that Ohio voters will be voting on the measure on November 6, 2012. See this story. The story has a misleading title. Included in the omnibus election law bill was a provision easing the deadline for a new party to qualify for the ballot from four months before the primary, to three months before the primary. In September 2011, a U.S. District Court judge had ruled that although the new deadline is better than the old one, it is still unconstitutionally early.
The bill would move the primary to May and reduce the preliminary period from 120 days to 90 days, effectively shifting the deadline by 90 days.
When the 6th Circuit originally ruled in Blackwell, they had stressed in a 2-1 opinion that it was the combination of early primary and the period between the deadline and the primary (and possibly the number of signatures) that was the problem.
Brunner should have been decided solely on grounds that the SOS executive fiat was unconstitutional. Instead the judge went ahead and ruled on the substance, but the SOS had only changed the filing deadline by 20 days.
In Husted, Judge Marbley totally ignored the change in primary date; he appears to have a prejudice against the omnibus bill, conflating the filing date with the petition drive which was focused on other provisions; and was totally dismissive of the reasons for the 90 period as if it was the Secretary of State whining about the work he had to do.
Given that the primary includes congressional elections, whose ballots must be sent out 45 days before the election date, 90 days is quite reasonable, given that candidates for the new party could not file for the primary until after the party qualifies.
#1, there is no reported precedent from any state that upholds a petition deadline has early as February of the election year, for new party qualification efforts.
The Tennessee decision from 2010, striking down an April petition deadline, is reported now, 793 F Supp 2d 1064.
No more omnibus laws — split each bill into a zillion parts ???
Put an ENTIRE election law code into a Constitution ???
What is the magic formula used by the MORON courts regarding UN-equal stuff ???
UN-equal dates ???
UN-equal signatures on petitions ???
Etc.
Separate is NOT equal. Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — with the mini-armies of MORON lawyers NOT able to detect such basic principle in ballot access cases since 1968 — a mere 43 years ago — now like thousands of years ago.
The Tennessee decision said it was a combination of the 2.5% signatures, the party affiliation requirement and the 120 days. It didn’t say anything about April.
Tennessee, like Ohio will sooner or later realize that the Open Primary is the solution.
#4, Tennessee already has an open primary.
The Tennessee decision does not say the early deadline would be OK if the number of signatures were much smaller. The Tennessee decision even relies on the New Jersey deadline decision, which said that April was too early, even though only 800 signatures were needed for statewide minor party and independent candidates, and 100 for US House and legislature.
If the Tennessee decision said what you say it does, why don’t you quote from it?
#5 “The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Tennessee’s 2.5% requirement in Section 2-1-104(a)(29), coupled with the party membership requirement in Section 2-1-104(a)(30) and the state’s 120 day deadline for new political parties, effectively preclude minor political party participation in state and national elections in Tennessee.”
If Tennessee had an open primary, they wouldn’t be in court defending the kangaroo court proceedings of the Democratic Party in the Kurita election.
Louisiana, Washington, California, and Nebraska (legislature) have open primaries.
Pingback: Ohio Referendum Petition on Omnibus Election Law Almost Certainly has Enough Valid Signatures | ThirdPartyPolitics.us