On March 19, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy DeGiusti declined to issue an injunction, putting the Libertarian Party on the Oklahoma ballot. He noted that the party submitted 57,137 signatures by the March 1 deadline, and that the requirement is 51,739 signatures, and the signatures have not yet been checked. Therefore, it is possible the party has enough valid signatures. Oklahoma election officials are checking the signatures now, and probably won’t be finished until March 28. Here is the 35-page order.
The order, on page 20, seems to suggest that Judge DeGiusti believes that it is possible for independent presidential candidates to get on the November ballot without a petition, just by paying a fee. The order says, “Independents have placed presidential candidates on the ballot via the alternative means of paying a filing fee without gaining party recognition.” Actually, independent presidential candidates, and the presidential nominees of unqualified parties, need 43,890 signatures by July 15.
The order does not mention any of the 17 precedents which say that petition deadlines for a new party to get on the ballot are unconstitutional, if they are earlier than May. The order mentions several precedents that uphold petitions of 5%, but does not acknowledge that none of the federal precedents mentioned in the order relate to presidential elections. The federal precedents cited in the order are Jenness v Fortson (which concerned a gubernatorial and a U.S. House election), and Rainbow Coalition v Oklahoma Election Board (which concerned ballot access in another midterm year, 1986). The order does not mention Bergland v Harris, a 1985 Eleventh Circuit opinion that said that Jenness v Fortson doesn’t necessarily apply to presidential elections. Another important precedent the order does not mention in Blomquist v Thomsen, a 10th circuit opinion which said that when the normal petitioning period is shortened, the number of signatures should be proportionately reduced. Oklahoma is in the 10th circuit. The order does not mention that in Anderson v Celebrezze, the U.S. Supreme Court said presidential ballot access is entitled to greater protection than ballot access for other office.
Man, I hope someone on the party’s side has been pointing out these precedents to the judge (or plans to). I understand his “hands-off” attitude at the moment though; he clearly wanted the state to meet the LP halfway and instead it acted like a child. Hopefully we’ll have a more informed and reasonable decision if the LP doesn’t meet the signature requirement.
Separate is NOT equal.
Each election is new.
NONSTOP MORON courts and ballot access lawyers since 1968.
“I hope someone on the party’s side has been pointing out these precedents to the judge…”
Jim Linger is perhaps the most experienced ballot access attorney the LP has. I’m sure he did. Sounds like the Judge just didn’t want to make a decision.
So if the State Election Board rules the petition insufficient, ballots to overseas vote will be sent before a challenge can be adjudicated and the ball game is over. These mazes are intricately designed and carefully tended to have dead ends. Even when the courts order and exit cut in the shrubbery, the big parties just plant more bushes.
Pingback: U.S. District Court Won’t Issue an Injunction Putting Libertarian Party on Oklahoma Ballot, At Least For Now | ThirdPartyPolitics.us