On July 12, attorneys for the state of Arkansas asked the Eighth Circuit to reverse the July 3 decision of a U.S. District Court in Libertarian Party v Thurston. The U.S. District Court had enjoined the 2019 law that increased the number of signatures for a newly-qualifying party from 10,000 signatures to 26,746 signatures.
Correct arguments in Dist Ct ???
If NO, then one more LOSS due to useless lawyers ???
At some point the original courts will automatically dismiss junk ballot access cases and the appellate courts will automatically affirm such dismissed cases.
How is this going to work out on appeal? Will there be a full hearing on the merits, or is this just a request to lift the injunction pending a full hearing?
If this gets to a full hearing, there is one point that I think should be developed more fully. The state asserts that they have an interest in ensuring that a party has a “modicum of support.” Yet the law in Arkansas, unlike many other states provides only one way for a party to show this — votes for the candidate at the top of the ticket. As I recall, in 2018, the LP ran many candidates for many offices, and many of them got double digit support. It seems to me that this is plenty of evidence that the LP enjoys a “modicum of support” in Arkansas.
I’d also like to see the “crowded ballot” concern laughed out of court. How many 2018 races in Arkansas were one candidate only?