On February 9, attorneys for Illinois state government filed this Seventh Circuit brief in Libertarian Party of Illinois v Scholz, 16-1667. The issue is the constitutionality of the law that requires newly-qualifying parties (but not established parties) to run a full slate of candidates. The 21-page brief says the state interest in this law is to “promote political stability, prevent ballot overcrowding, and avoid voter confusion and deception.” This boiler-plate language from Jenness v Fortson (a U.S. Supreme Court decision from Georgia, issued in 1971) is typically inserted in state government briefs in defense of restrictive ballot access laws. The state’s brief contains no more specific state interest.

The state admits that no other state has ever had a full-slate requirement. The state brief does not acknowledge that three different U.S. District Court Judges have all criticized the law in separate decisions, in either this case or a related pending case (this case is quite old, and while it was in the U.S. District Court, it was handled successively by three different judges).