On April 30, U.S. District Court Judge Martha Vazquez, a Clinton appointee, upheld New Mexico’s requirement that an independent candidate submit a petition of 3% of the last vote cast. Parker v Duran, 14-cv-617. The plaintiff was a candidate for Public Education Commission, district 4. He needed 2,196 valid signatures, and was only able to collect 1,379 signatures.
He sued, noting that a minor party nominee in New Mexico for the same position would only have needed a 1% petition, which would have been 732 signatures. He was the appointed incumbent. Because he did not get on the ballot, the voters only saw the name of one candidate on the ballot, the Democratic nominee.
The decision is of poor quality, because it fails to mention most of the precedents that held that states cannot require more signatures for independent candidates than for newly-qualifying parties. It is obvious that if the purpose of petition requirements is to keep the ballot from being too crowded, it is irrational to require more signatures for an independent candidate than for an entire new party, because a new party can place many candidates on the ballot, whereas an independent petition only adds one name to the ballot.
The decision cites cases in which 3% petitions have been upheld, but the decisions cited did not relate to states that required more signatures for independents than new parties, except for one case, Nader v Connor, from Texas in 2004. The decision does not mention Danciu v Glisson, a Florida Supreme Court decision that said states cannot require more signatures for independents than for new parties. It does not mention DeLaney v Bartlett or Greaves v State Board of Elections, both of which said North Carolina could not require more signatures for independents than for new parties. It does not mention Childrey v Bennett, which documented that when Alabama was sued for requiring more signatures for independents than new parties, the state conceded that policy was unconstitutional. Parker will probably appeal to the 10th circuit.
“The decision is of poor quality, …” Richard, you seem to have a real talent for understatement here! But then, more exact and expressive words would not be appropriate for publication.
The opinion is one more piece of JUNK since 1968.
Each election is NEW.
Separate is NOT equal. Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
Too many MORON lawyers and judges to count.
——
Equal nonimating petitions.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Richard: The Courts know (or should know) what other Courts have ruled, but they let their biases influence their decisions. They don’t care. There are no penalties that I know of when a Court issues a ruling which they know conflicts with a higher court ruling. Other than the Federal Reserve System, the “appointment for life” of our federal court members, is the greatest threat to the citizens of the United States.