The New Jersey Socialist Party has voted to file a lawsuit against the state, to obtain the ability of voters to register as members of the Socialist Party. In 2001 the state appeals court ruled that it is unconstitutional to force all voters to register only “Democratic”, “Republican” or “independent.” In response, the state started letting voters register into the parties that had filed that lawsuit, but no others. The 2001 lawsuit had been filed by the Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and Reform Parties.
Some years later the Conservative Party of New Jersey filed a similar lawsuit, and the state then conceded and agreed to let voters register into the Conservative Party. But in all these years, the state has never amended its statute to update its policy on how a group may qualify to let voters register into such a group. The state has also informed the Socialist Party that it is not entitled to relief, so the only option seems to be a lawsuit.
Why didn’t the previous lawsuit result in an injunction prohibiting state officials from enforcing the unconstitutional statute? If it had done so, then state officials would be in contempt of court. Without the text of the 2001 decision in front of me, I’m having trouble visualizing what the court’s order looked like.
#1, because the 2001 decision, Council of Alternative Political Parties v State, 781 A 2d 1041 (2001), an excellent, lengthy decision, limited the relief to the five parties that filed the lawsuit. The court did that because those five had showed that they regularly placed nominees on the New Jersey ballot.
The later case that gave the same rights to the Conservative Party did not result in a formal decision, because the state settled the case without the need for a judge to adjudicate it.
Good for them. Best of luck.
#2, let me rephrase my question. What possible rationale did the court have for limiting relief in the way you describe? Isn’t that the judicial analogue to a bill of attainder?
By the way, isn’t the legal issue here very similar to the recent Arizona case about voter registration forms?
#3, I think the court just assumed the state elections office would promulgate a regulation, setting forth objective rules on which unqualified parties may enjoy voter registration rights.
#4, no, it’s not the same issue. New Jersey deals with whether voters in unqualified parties may register into those parties. They didn’t demand that they be listed on the form, just that there be a blank line in which voters could write them in. In Arizona, the issue is whether ballot-qualified parties that always nominate by primary have a right to be listed on the voter registration form with their own checkbox, given that the state gives a checkbox to the two largest parties. The Arizona case is a case of first impression. There has never been a court case on that issue before. If the Arizona legislature passed a laws saying only the largest party should be listed on the form with its own checkbox, then everyone in the world would say that isn’t fair.
One more PURGE list ???
—–
Who needs any *socialist* stuff — with the Donkeys being more and more progressive / socialist / liberal / communist since 1932 in Great Depression I ???
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO party hack stuff – caucuses, primaries and conventions.
Equal ballot access requirements for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.
Difficult ONLY for the appointed robot party hack SCOTUS folks.
#6, thanks for clarifying the difference between New Jersey and Arizona.