On November 30, the Eighth Circuit issued an eight-page opinion in Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Martin, 16-3794. The issue was the deadline for a new party to submit its petition for party status. The old deadline was more than a year before the election, but the U.S. District Court had declared it unconstitutional on July 15, 2016. The state had then appealed to the Eighth Circuit. But after the briefs had been filed in the Eighth Circuit, the legislature improved the deadline so that it is on primary day, which is May of the election year.
Despite the legislature improving the deadline, the state continued asking the Eighth Circuit to rule that the U.S. District Court had been wrong. But the Eighth Circuit said the case is moot, and that there is little reason to fear that the legislature will make the deadline worse again in the future. The Eighth Circuit noted that the bill fixing the deadline had passed unanimously in one chamber, and only two votes were cast against it in the other chamber. The Eighth Circuit also said that the U.S. District Court had been correct to award attorneys’ fees to the attorney for the Libertarian Party.
At the oral argument, the Libertarian Party had asserted that even the new deadline is too early, but the Eighth Circuit said that is an issue for a future case, if the party wants to file a new case someday. The opinion is by Judge Roger Wollman, a Reagan appointee; and it is signed by Judge Michael Melloy and Raymond Gruender, Bush Jr. appointees.
Republicans and Democratics of the new United Coalition applaud the effort to make the playing field equal and fair to all parties and independents in Arkansas.
We seek to unite all who are interested in the absolutely most pure proportional representation and we are attracting like minded leaders to our team every day.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation for more than twenty-two consecutive years and it works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
Poorly reasoned decision. The Court should have said that the appeal was rendered moot, but not that the lower court decision should be vacated. The Supreme Court has said that when a losing party moots an appeal after judgment, vacatur is not in order. Then, armed with the extant district court decision, attorney’s fees would be proper. In the absence of a district court decision, sustaining an award of attorney’s fees is tricky (though not impossible).
One more MORON case by MORON lawyers unable to detect that —
1. Every election is NEW.
2. Separate is NOT equal. Brown v Bd of Ed 1954
3. Each elective OFFICE is totally separate from any other elective office.
4. Equal in the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 means EQUAL — as in EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the SAME elective office in the SAME election area.
5. A CONSTITUTIONAL injury at a specific time or during a specific time period does NOT become moot if any mere law is amended or repealed — Otherwise the gerrymander hacks will nonstop amend / repeal laws and get away with constitution murder/treason.
6. The 1776 folks – along with Chief Justice Marshall, the writers of the 14th Amdt, etc. – are spinning faster and faster in their graves regarding the worse and worse LAWLESS machinations of New Age HACKS in high places.
7. Thus — Heaven help the USA regardless of the armies of MORONS in ALL cases involving govt officers and alleged violations of constitutions and laws.
The belief that the judiciary will act in the best interests of anyone other than their duopoly masters is foolish. Even more foolish are minor party donors and leadership that continue to pay lawyers to actually grovel in front of the Kangaroos.
Folks – it’s all rigged. Petitioning the central government, an inherent human right codified by the First Amendment, is futile. The whole D vs. R ‘battle’ is all show. A few are finally starting to understand the reality. Revolution is coming to America.
Don, my Sep. 1 2017 printed Ballot Access News has a chart on page 5, showing the last time a minor party or independent candidate won a constitutional ballot access lawsuit. There have been such victories in 48 of the 50 states. In 2017 alone there have been such victories in Arkansas (2), Georgia, Montana, and Utah. In 2016 they were in Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Richard – All ballots access cases that are decided by a judge aren’t equal.
How many of the victories you refer to were for issues of minor importance?
How many cases were lost?
Subjectively, have the victories been for more or less substantial issues than the losses?
The top 6 SCOTUS JUNK ballot access cases —
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971)
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974)
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986)
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992)
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008)
A mere 40 years of JUNK from the SCOTUS hacks – due in part to lots of MORON ballot access lawyers.
Don, the number of signatures for a presidential candidate running outside the two major parties to get on the ballot in all jurisdictions, as a percentage of the total vote cast for president, is now lower than at any time since 1928 (using the easier method in each state). Presidential ballot access has been getting easier over the last 35 years. 2017 was a great year for progress, especially in Oklahoma, Georgia, and North Carolina.
EQUAL ballot access tests ONLY in top 2 primary regimes ???
Separate and UN-Equal tests in all other regimes ??? — regardless of Brown v Bd of Ed 1954.
The Ds and Rs know that they have to give a little bit here and there to maintain the appearance that the USA is a representative republic. Presidential ballot access is one of those places where they are so confident that will prevail that they’ll throw a bone here and there to appear to be ‘democratic’.
However, the big issue is that which Demo Rep beats to death in every comment thread: Why is there any difference whatsoever between any candidates to get on any ballot? The answer is simple – because the Ds and Rs own the system, and they have no concerns about ‘fringe’ folks like those who post here who are just an annoyance with no constituency to speak of. Aside from the ivory tower mathematical concerns of RCV/IRV vs. Condorcet, etc., the best thing about what a few places are doing is they are ignoring the courts and are moving towards RCV. One of the major reasons that I like RCV is because it typically levels the playing field for ballot access for all candidates, regardless of party or non-party status of a candidate.
IMO, all attempts to make a difference by ‘fixing’ the current ballot access system via minor changes to ballot access laws and via the judiciary are futile.
Hopefully that very rare NON-MORON lawyer may look at some postings in BAN and actually learn something about getting EQUAL ballot access tests.
The Donkey/Elephant oligarchs joined ranks during and after the 1928-1932 Prez elections —
58-42 Hoover Nov 1928
42-58 Hoover Nov 1932 — circa the super-crash bottom of Great Depression I in 1929-1933.
ie all the UN-equal ballot access laws in 1929-1932 and after by such oligarchs.