On October 17, U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Watson again declined to put the Ohio Libertarian Party’s candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General on the November ballot. Here is the 36-page opinion in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, southern district, 2:13cv-953.
The candidates are not on the November ballot because they didn’t win the Libertarian Party’s primary in May. They didn’t win the primary because their names weren’t on the primary ballot, and they had been removed from the primary ballot so late that the party was unable to find write-in candidates in its own primary for those offices. The candidates weren’t on the primary ballot, even though they got enough signatures on their primary petitions, because the circulators didn’t fill out a blank asking who paid them. As a result of the party not being on the November 2014 ballot for Governor, it will go off the ballot. The law requires parties to poll 2% for Governor in 2014 in order to remain on the ballot for 2015 and 2016.
However, the part of the case challenging the definition of “political party” passed by the legislature in late 2013 is still alive, and the Judge gave a faint hint that the 2013 bill might not survive the next round of litigation. Page 34 says, “In the absense of an injunction…the Libertarian Party of Ohio will lose its minor party status and have to meet the more demanding requirements of Senate Bill 193 to re-qualify should the Court uphold the statute. Because the Court has not reached the issue, however, the risk of harm that would result from application of S.B. 193’s new requirements is speculative.”
Page two says, “Plaintiffs have a long history of fighting for their constitutional right to appear on the ballot in Ohio elections, and for every victory they have achieved, new barriers to ballot access have been erected…this case illustrates that electoral politics can be unkind to the uninitiated, the political novice, or the unprepared. At the end of the day, neither of the two major political parties emerged unscathed as a result of the efforts of political operatives to manipulate the ballot for their own purposes.”
“The candidates weren’t on the primary ballot, even though they got enough signatures on their primary petitions, because the circulators didn’t fill out a blank asking who paid them.”
Sounds to me like someone within the Ohio Libertarian Party dropped the ball. All 3rd parties by now ought to know the major party Secretaries of State (or whatever office decides who makes the ballot) will go over the rules with a “fine tooth comb” regarding 3rd parties and Independents in an attempt to find the slightest failure of their adhering to the rules.
Unless I am overlooking something else, I think the bottom line here, is the Libertarian Party leadership fell back on their laurels and didn’t pay close enough to the rules.
Am I being too critical?
Sickening and maddening! Liberty minded patriots stand now or bow forever! There are several Ohio House candidates running and support is needed from everywhere. If we mean to keep alternative parties recognized in this state we must begin electing said candidates.
Do not waste your vote! And in my mind there are only a couple of ways to do that:
1) Do not cast your vote at all
2) Cast your vote against your better judgement out of buying into the fear that you are wasting your vote on an alternative party candidate allowing the one you do not want in office to win.
Honestly, with what we have seen from our elected officials over the past 30+ years do you really believe the other guy would have done any worse?
In the end, if SB 193 stands those in power have limited your choice to be R and D for the foreseeable future in Ohio.
Again I say, stand now or bow forever!
Admittedly mistakes were made in that regard. However, in their defense there was precedent and arguable reason for not filling that line in.
That not withstanding, the Republican party has worked overtime to eliminate any recognition of alternative parties here.
If you study the history of this issue begging with SB 193 and acknowledge the concerns that the race for Governor would be much closer than it is, the desire to offer Kasich up as a Presidential candidate and needing a much bigger advantage than the 2% he was elected with in 2010, etc, it becomes painfully obvious this has been orchestrated and is working as they had hoped.
The mistakes made were minor clerical errors and played right to their hand yes, but without them the issue of all he rest still stands and is detrimental to all third or alternative parties.
As I am a Libertarian candidate for the Ohio Houe I know my opinion may be slightly biased but I really do not think by much.
I think the judge misinterpreted the exchange quoted on page 31.
Zeiger said that he had a right to make objections when the questions were objectionable and poorly put.
Brown then interjected that it was wasting his time.
Zeiger then said “and I will continue to do so.”
Brown, then repeated that Zeiger’s objection were wasting his time.
Zeiger’s use of the conjunction indicates that he was completing his statement.
A more accurate transcript would likely read:
Zeiger: I am entitled to make objections when questions are clearly objectionable and poorly put —
Brown: (interrupting) But, you are wasting my time.
Zeiger: —- and I will continue to do so.
The judge read it as.
Zeiger: I am entitled to make objections when questions are clearly objectionable and poorly put.
Brown: (pauses, and looks at reporter to ensure reporter has put a period after “put”, and double-spaced to his response) You’re wasting my time.
Zeiger: (mulls over Browns statement, and carefully responds): And I will continue to do so.
Brown then repeated his statement that Zeiger was wasting his time.
But if, as the judge claims, Zeiger was admitting that his purpose was to waste Brown’s time, there would have been no reason for Brown to repeat the claim. It is much more plausible for Brown to asserting that Zeiger was wasting his (Brown’s) time by making objections, and then repeating it when Zeiger said that he would continue to do so.
It is not correct that new ballot barriers have been erected. ‘Blackwell’ was a split decision, in which the Appellate Court stressed it was the combination of an early deadline, along with the number of signatures, plus the requirement that a new party nominate by primary, that were problematic.
“Moving the filing deadline closer to the date of the primary or allowing parties to choose their candidates in another manner may impose some additional costs on the state, but this is the price imposed by the First Amendment.”
SOS Brunner subsequently attempted to administratively lower the petition requirements, as well as modify the number of signatures for party qualification. The court ruled that she did not have the authority to do so, and as an aside said that the changes were not sufficient.
The legislature then changed the deadline to the minimum necessary to permit primary ballots to be sent overseas in compliance with federal law, which the judge in that case opined about the SOS whining about all the things that are necessary to conduct an election.
After the state rescinded that law, they passed a new law which eliminated the requirement for new parties to nominate by primary, and instead permitted them to essentially nominate by petition. In ‘Blackwell’, the State argued that a minor party candidate could qualify by petition, but the court had rejected that claim, noting that petition candidates could not have the name of their party on the ballot.
Frankly, the LP in Ohio wants a primary. It helps with branding, it energizes the base, and it greatly helps us gather information on actual Libertarian members (via primary) in Ohio.
Meanwhile, the OHIO Constitution sets a provision for having a primary for political parties.
The BIGGEST issue is that NOT ONE person in that Ohio General Assembly took time to call me or the LPO or any third party and ask them about SB 193. Senator Seitz just dropped it on us on September 19, 2013. After three lawsuits which the LPO won, you would think that common sense would dictate a phone call to bring all parties together in a meeting room, instead of the resulting courtroom.
FURTHERMORE, during the 4 weeks of hearings on SB 193, there was a line out the door from ALL parts of the political spectrum that were AGAINST SB 193. Guess how many people came to speak in favor of SB 193? NOT ONE SOUL showed up to speak in favor. YET, the Republicans voted nearly 100% against the will of the people. I carry in my wallet the name of the one GOP Senator and seven GOP Reps that voted against SB 193.
This isn’t over. I still have a few years of life and will go to my grave fighting for liberty.
Kevin Knedler
Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Ohio 2007-present
LP Candidate for Ohio Secretary of State 2014
The judge is correct that new ballot barriers have been erected. The new barriers in SB 193 include a provision for a county distribution requirement for the party petition. That is new, and there is no county distribution requirement for candidates seeking a place on the primary ballot, and there is no distribution requirement for independent candidates.
Also SB 193 has a new requirement that candidates nominated by convention of a ballot-qualified minor party must submit their own small petition. This requirement is completely senseless, and is only in the law to try to get around the state constitutional provision that says that candidates for a partisan primary must either be nominated in a partisan primary or “by petition.”
Gregg Norris:
“…there was precedent and arguable reason for not filling that line in.”
Again, this is my very point. We all know what the real definition of ASSUME is!
It doesn’t matter there was precedent and an arguable reason for not filling it in. This is what the election officials look for. For 3rd parties and Independents to “assume” because maybe some other candidate didn’t do “such and such.”
If the law was still valid and required the circulators to fill out a blank asking who paid them, such information should have been reported.
I would love to have seen the Libertarians on the ballot in Ohio, but in this case, I have to say, it is nobody’s fault but theirs.
“…this case illustrates that electoral politics can be unkind to the uninitiated, the political novice, or the unprepared.”
Again, the Courts reinforced what I had replied to earlier.
When I first began my 3rd party involvement back in 1969 (a decision I often reflect back on and sometimes see as a wasted time of my life), I often witnessed the “excitable” nature of 3rd party advocates and of their little seriousness toward the mechanics of politics and of the election laws which had to be dealt with to get a party on the ballot. Too many of them would come to party meetings, only wanting to use the occasion to “stump” for some cause which to them was the root of all of America’s problems. They had no desire to discuss ballot access legislation or of contacting their respective legislators asking for a change in the current law to make it easier or fairer for 3rd party candidates or Independents to get on the ballot.
This was one of the reasons, after some decades of dealing with the “excitables,” I decided to become a Independent.
It appears some 3rd parties are still plagued with “excitables.”
How sad.
ALL 50 State legislatures are filled with ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander HACKS — who LOVE rigging the election laws to keep ALL opposition off the ballots.
ALL houses of ALL 50 State legislatures have ANTI-Democracy minority rule regimes — 1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 control.
Urban communist Donkeys or Rural fascist Elephants.
———
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Demo Rep:
If I did not think better, I would classify you as one of these “excitables” who I had to deal with for some 40 years.
You constantly reply something about “gerrymandered election districts.” I agree with you.
My question is, are you actively attempting to change such?
There is no county distribution requirement. There is a congressional distribution requirement that would almost be impossible to fail even if there was a deliberate effort to do so.
If a new party managed to get 499 signatures in 9 districts, they would need to average 4862 in the other 7 districts. It is as much a ballot access barrier as line painted on a parking lot are a traffic barrier.
There is no requirement that the new party nominate by convention. The sponsors of the party petition (3 to 5 persons) get to decide whether individual candidates who file their petition are permitted on the ballot. This prevents candidates from hijacking the party name.
“get around” is your spelling of “comply”. You may recall in Blackwell, that the State of Ohio had argued that the petition method permitted candidates to file much later than the previous year. But the court said that was not comparable since they could not have the party name on the ballot. Did the court make that up – or were they agreeing with something that the Libertarian Party had argued?