On November 23, the Eighth Circuit refused to rehear Libertarian Party of North Dakota v Jaeger, 10-3212, and also refused to amend its original October 2011 opinion, which erroneously said that when a party submits 7,000 valid signatures, it remains ballot-qualified indefinitely afterwards. The October 2011 decision had said North Dakota needs a primary vote test for minor party candidates, because otherwise the ballot would become too crowded because there is no other ballot access barrier. In truth, a party that submits 7,000 signatures is only on the ballot for one election, and it is then removed from the ballot unless it polled 5% for Governor or President (if the last election was a presidential election year) or Secretary of State (if the last election was a midterm year).
It is very odd for a court to fail to fix a factual error, when the factual error is pointed out in a rehearing request. Generally the panel denies rehearing, but issues an amended opinion fixing the error.
Could this incorrect ruling be construed to mean that the court has ruled that a party that submits 7,000 valid signatures actually IS ballot qualified indefinitely?
It’s a federal court, and federal courts are not supposed to interpret state laws unless there is a time emergency. Nevertheless, if I lived in North Dakota, I would definitely try to schedule a meeting with the Secretary of State, show him the opinion, and ask him to interpret the law according to what the court said about how a party remains on.
The Libertarian Party was the only minor party that was on the ballot in 2010, so if any party ought to ask, it is the Libertarian Party.
What ballot access lawyer has ANY brain cells capable of detecting that
Separate is NOT equal ???
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
Pingback: Eighth Circuit Won’t Rehear North Dakota Ballot Access Case, and Won’t Fix the Factual Error in Original Decision | ThirdPartyPolitics.us