On August 13, the Montana Green Party filed a federal lawsuit, challenging the constitutionality of the procedure for a group to become a qualified party. Montana Green Party v Stapleton, 6:18cv-87. Here is the Complaint.
The lawsuit attacks two characteristics of the law: (1) the March 5 petition deadline; (2) the unequal distribution requirement. The Montana law says the petition must contain a certain number of signatures in 34 of the state’s 100 state house districts. Unlike all other states’ distribution requirements for statewide petitions for new parties or independent candidates, the number of signatures required in each district is not equal. Instead of requiring, for example, 100 signatures in each of 34 districts, the Montana law says the number of signatures in each of the districts must equal 5% of the winning gubernatorial candidate’s vote total inside that district, or 150 signatures, whichever is less. Therefore, some districts require as few as 55 signatures, but others require as many as 150.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that distribution requirements for statewide petitions that are not equal, violate “one person, one vote.” Other states with distribution requirements for statewide petitions require an equal number of signatures, or an equal percentage of the total vote cast: Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania (primary petitions only), and Virginia.
Each voter in a Montana district that only requires 55 signatures has more power than a voter who lives in a district with a requirement for 150 signatures. The 2018 Green Party petition would have had enough valid signatures if it had not been for a recent state court ruling that it didn’t meet the distribution requirement. Montana did not have a distribution requirement for new parties until 1981, and it has never had one for independent candidates.
As to the March 5 deadline, other states with deadlines that early, or even later, for new party petitions (or new party candidate petitions), have been struck down in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California (for presidential elections), Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah (for special elections). If the state argues that the early deadline is needed to give the new party its own primary, the response is that states don’t need to give newly-qualifying parties their own primary. The case against early deadlines is especially in strong in states with severe winter weather, such as Montana.
United Coalition Update
http://www.usparliament.org
Already 343 USA Presidential Candidates Already Have Filed for President (POTUS) on the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) site as of today 8/13/2018.
13 of the POTUS Filers are Libertarian Party of whom one is female.
5 of the POTUS Filers are Green Party of whom one is female.
James Ogle is on the FEC list as one of the five Green Party candidate for President.
Mark Herd said he will be filing too to be part of United Coalition and plans to be on the list as well.
Everything is geared towards Earth Day 2020 (10th USA Parliament Election) and Earth Day 2022 (2nd International Parliament Election).
Annual events will occur in Monterey County California on around April 20th during years of 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Mark Herd is also planning an event in Los Angeles County in around September 2018.
Reaching out by United Coalition USA team, Herd/Ogle [Libertarian/One] for President, as we continue our search for bigger team.
Mere 49 years since Moore v Ogilvie 1969
Now routine perversion of 1st Amdt. regarding *election mechanics*.
See earlier posting.
The Green Party bosses have it wrong. I am a candidate for US President in 2020, registered Green Party, but proclaiming “One Party”.
That’s because the United Coalition has been slandered, bullied, treated unfairly, and that must stop.
The first Green Party in California state elections (CA CD 17, 1993) Kevin Clark, is my best friend and he agrees.
He requests to be registered with our team as Green Libertarian.
Our plan is different from the current bosses who only see division and conflict because we are able to unite under simple principles that the whole agrees. We prefer seeing candidates working across party lines, demonstrating teamwork, to earn votes from the 100%.
Roseanne and Occupy got it wrong because they tried to adopt our math incorrectly.
The Green Party bosses are responsible. Not 99% against 1%. The math is 99% (plus 100 votes) guaranteed satisfaction level for 100-member committee.
Occupy Wall Street had it wrong. Our team helps corporate law improve too.
Our company that Roseanne started with us requires pure proportional representation in all corporate elections, votes of confidence for CEOs, workers on the BoDs and more.
Roseanne asked to be removed from our team but she still owns share #1 (now 40,000 shares because of share splits).
http://www.allpartysystem.com
We are for peaceful alternatives to force and violence under pure proportional representation.
Every US voter is free to register and proclaim the party they choose without penalty.
The powerful message is unity of 100% and the Green Party works to unite the 100% and Greens will make up a smaller percent of the 100% based on votes cast and paper ballots as proof.
The Green Party bosses in California have blocked the unity since I ran for Governor of California as a Green in a platform of state voting reform through pure proportional representation (PPR) and I had my statement about pure proportional representation on every voters pamphlet in California.
The Environmentalist Party started in California in 1983 and they are among our best partners in California. We helped them elect their new leaders while the old were opposed to pure proportional representation.
I am the original joogle from who google got their name in 1997 but the Green Party bosses made a deal with Google founder Sergio Brin because they opposed to the unity between the Environmentalist Party, the Green Party and all the unifiers from all parties and independents.
My campaign is designed to attract votes by demonstrating unity but the admin in this facebook page is implying that they don’t want you to hear about my campaign.
http://www.usparliament.org/google2020.php
JO-
How about post ALL of your complaints about alleged mis/mal treatment for decades by/from other folks on YOUR website with a mere link to ALL of it on THIS website ???
Even I have limits about NON-BAN / NON-election reform stuff.
Either that or try to get some brain drugs to reduce certain obvious highly repetitive obsessions about past events — which are now obsolete
— due to the current Democracy CRISIS —
1. UNEQUAL BALLOT ACCESS
2. MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER REGIMES
3. MULTIPLE SUPER-DANGEROUS VIOLATIONS OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
= TOTAL CURRENT DANGER.
—
PR AND APPV
With all due respect, I like the emphasis in the GP petition (distribution requirement is onerous) better than yours (distribution requirement is unequal). If the inequality argument is the one that sticks the court’s “solution” could be to delete the 5% alternative and just make the requirement 150/district, or to change it to 5% of the total vote. Either way would make it harder to get access.
Eeyn, the reason the lawsuit against the distribution requirement is a strong lawsuit is that the court need not get into the nebulous measurement of how onerous it is. Unequal distribution requirements for statewide petitions are unconstitutional even if they aren’t onerous. For example, independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy won a lawsuit against Rhode Island’s distribution requirement, which was only 10 signatures from each of the five counties. No one would say that was onerous, but it didn’t matter; it violated “one person one vote” so it was thrown out.
— ie NO machinations regarding subareas of the area —
UNEQUAL voters moving, passing away, new in subareas.
Otherwise – the gerrymander HACK incumbents would have precinct- by- precinct machinations.