The Arizona Libertarian Party has filed this 66-page opening brief in Libertarian Party of Arizona v Reagan, 17-16491. The case concerns the requirements for getting on the primary ballot of a small qualified party. The state sets different rules for parties that have been continuously qualified, versus parties that got on the ballot at either of the last two elections. As a result, the ballot-qualified Libertarian Party, which is subject to the harsh rules, was unable to run any candidates for Congress or state legislature in 2016, whereas the ballot-qualified Green Party, which is subject to extremely easy rules, was able to run such candidates. Yet the Libertarian Party in Arizona is larger than the Green Party in Arizona.
AZ LP is an obvious threat to the AZ Elephants in control.
AZ Elephants love the AV Greens to divide and conquer the leftists in AZ.
—
See the now many postings about –
1, Each election is NEW.
2. Separate is NOT equal.
3. EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for each office.
Good luck in finding the 3 points in any brief
— as a grounds for a lower court case to get to SCOTUS.
Obviously, I’m much more inclined to support the Green Party, and would as well in Arizona (though I still have no idea why Swing’s 5% state-wide got zero press interest), but of course the Libertarian Party should be on the ballot there. It’s odd to me that there’s such a difference in the rules for those two situations.
Didn’t the Libertarian’s re-open their primary after the SOS ruled that non-Libertarians could not sign their candidate petitions?
Under Top 2, the nonsense about qualifying parties and qualifying candidates within parties is eliminated. Simply let candidates qualify as candidates. Parties, newspapers, unions, interest groups would be free to endorse candidates as they see fit.
Top 2 is a 2 step short version of RCV —
both are electing more extremists with rigged majorities.
PR and AppV
Are efforts also being made to lobby Arizona’s state legislature for ballot access reform?