1. Interesting brief to compare with a situation in Oklahoma where the state only allowed a candidate 24 days to obtain signatures on a petition “in lieu” of paying a $750 filing fee from four (4) percent of the voters eligible to vote in the election when that candidate’s name would first appear on the ballot. In that situation the State provides no official petitioning form for a candidate to use to meet the four (4) percent requirement.
   Furthermore, the candidate denied access to the ballot for the Third Congressional District in Oklahoma drew no opponent for Primary election for his party. His inclusion on the ballot would certainly not have “clogged” the General election ballot when there could be only three candidates, Republican, Democratic and Libertarian.
   The candidate denied access to the ballot contends that the 24 day period to complete a four (4) percent petition is unreasonable, too vague to complete and more economically burdensome that the $750 filing fee. Knowledgeable petition circulators advised that hiring petitioners to meet the percentage requirement in Oklahoma’s largest and most thinly populated Congressional District would far exceed the $750 filing fee which the candidate could afford.
   The State declined to accept an affidavit of indigence “in lieu” of both the filing fee and the more expensive petition requirement over a very compressed time span. In writing, the State of Oklahoma stated there was no provision in Oklahoma law for indigent candidates.
   The Oklahoma would-be candidate asserts that Lubin v Panish (1974) decision by the U S Supreme Court controls in the instance and the candidate should be placed on the ballot for the November General Election ballot.
   Deadlines can be discriminatory because they can be too early as well as ending a period that is unreasonably brief.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.