On September 8, Rocky De La Fuente filed a lawsuit against the Texas ballot access requirements for independent presidential candidates, and against the state’s sore loser law as applied to presidential candidates. Kennedy v Secretary of State of Texas, w.d., 1:16cv-1047.
Texas is the only state with an independent presidential petition deadline earlier than June 9. The full range of deadlines for this type of petition, around the nation, is June 9 through September 9, except that Texas’ deadline is May 9.
Texas is also one of only two states in which the deadline for an independent congressional candidate is later than the deadline for an independent presidential candidate. The Texas petition deadline for independent congressional candidates, and state and county office, is June 23. The other such state is Nebraska, where the independent presidential deadline is August 1 but the independent deadline for congress is September 1 (also this year the Vermont independent presidential deadline is 3 days earlier than the independent congressional deadline; both are in August).
Texas is also one of only three states that requires more signatures for an independent presidential candidate than for an independent candidate for other statewide office. The Texas presidential petition is 79,939 signatures but the petition for other statewide office is 47,086. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Anderson v Celebrezze that states must go easier on ballot access for president than for other office. The other states with this characteristic are Florida and Oklahoma. De La Fuente and Jill Stein are suing Oklahoma.
What candidate has COMPETENT lawyers ???
1. Each election is NEW.
2. Separate is NOT equal.
3. EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area.
Paragraph 10 is a stretch. Requiring that a candidate be nominated by a party or by petition is not adding a qualification for office.
Paragraph 15 is in error. The filing deadline for non-presidential candidates for all candidates is in December, whether seeking nomination by an established party, and new party, or as an independent candidate. The January 2 deadline is for a party to inform the SOS that it intends to nominate by convention. Had Ms. Kennedy sought the congressional nomination of the American Delta Party, she would have needed to file in December with the state chair of the American Delta Party. The chair would have had to inform the SOS that the party intended to hold precinct conventions in March. A party also has to be organized in each county where it seeks to hold a convention.
Paragraph 19 is totally bogus. Since the circulator of a petition is required to point at the text, and read aloud that someone who voted in a presidential primary is ineligible to sign an independent petition, it is unlikely that any civic-minded person would sign a petition for an independent candidate.
70% of registered voters chose not to participate of the nomination activities of a political party, providing a pool of about 10 million potential signers. See ‘American Party of Texas v White’
Paragraph 22 fails to recognize that Texas lists write-in candidates in each polling booth, and that mail voters must be afforded the same experience in voting as in-person voters, to the extent practicable. Presumably this would require sending a list of write-in candidates with mail ballots, which by federal law must be sent to overseas voters 45 days before the election. Also, Texas ballots do not provide a write-in space unless there are write-in candidates for the office. So the requirement for ballot preparation and associated activities for on-ballot and write-in candidates is the same.
How come the lawsuit is not styled as being against Carlos Cascos? Doesn’t he deserve the same respect as Mark White and Bob Bullock?
UOCAVA has an exception for states that are involved in litigation.
I don’t see how UOCAVA would apply?
Are you saying that a state can’t have a deadline because they might get sued?