Rick Santorum’s petition for ballot access in the Indiana presidential primary has been ruled insufficient. He had the needed 4,500 signatures statewide, but Indiana also requires 500 in each U.S. House district, and in one district he was 24 signatures short. He says he will fight the decision and that many signatures were invalidated improperly. See this story.
While I cannot think of too many nice or polite things to say about Mr. Santorum, I do find it silly to have a ‘distribution’ (is that the term?) requirement for an election that voters in the entire state actually vote for.
For Presidential primaries do the parties decide who gets on the primary ballot or is entirely state law or a bit of both?
In Minnesota, I think its done by State law but get the impression that in other States the parties can have more say.
The Indiana law is in the election code. In 1976 Morris Udall, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, was also kept off the Indiana primary ballot because he also lacked enough valid signatures in just one district. He sued against the distribution requirement. In a 3-judge US District Court, he lost by a vote of 2-1.
1) I believe Indiana is that only state where if you don’t get the signatures in one district it prevents you from getting on the ballot statewide. 2) That’s not the first time that happened. In 1972, it was reported in the “Indianapolis Star” that Congressman John Ashbrook was kept off the ballot for the GOP primary against Nixon because he was 175 signatures short in two districts.
The Indianapolis Star is reporting that Santorum has “found” 49 new signatures. I just hope that these people didn’t “vote” in alphabetical order (true political junkies will get the joke):
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120206/NEWS0502/202060368/Santorum-team-finds-49-more-signatures-make-Indiana-ballot