The Maryland Libertarian Party has filed a notice of appeal to the 4th circuit in Johnston v Lamone. 19-1783. This is the case that argues that it is redundant for the state to require the party to file 10,000 signatures in order to get back on the ballot, when the party has over 22,000 registered members. The U.S. District Court had upheld the law on the grounds that, for all anyone knows, the Libertarian registrants registered in the party long ago and no longer support the party, but retain their Libertarian registration because of inertia. There is no evidence in the case to support that conclusion; it is mere speculation.
Individuals are nominated/elected — NOT *parties*.
Party registrations = PURGE lists loved by Stalin/Hitler tyrants.
SECRET nominations – as with SECRET ballots.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
Lots of people could have registered as Democrat or Republican long ago, and no longer support those parties, but retain those labels on their voter registration due to inertia.
I read the District Court opinion. One comment I have relates to a comment made by the court related to a requirement that parties seeking ballot access demonstrate some level of support. I saw this comment also made in the briefs and opinion relating to the recent Arkansas ballot access law, which was struck down. If this issue is important to courts, it seems that a question that should be argued is whether it is permissible for a ballot access law to have but one means for demonstrating a sufficient level of support, when it comes to whether a party is recognized by the state. Maryland, for its part, does this — only the gubernatorial election counts in years where this race is on the ballot, or the Presidential race in Presidential election years. But I’d ask — why should this be the sole test of whether a party has sufficient support. As I recall, the Maryland LP ran candidates in all 8 of Maryland’s Congressional districts in 2018, and all of them, as I recall got more than 2% of the vote. Some got more than 3%. It seems to me that this demonstrates a level of support. Why does it have to be limited to one race? Other states have this limitation as well — Arkansas and Iowa come to mind. It seems to me that when these cases are litigated, this is one additional point that the LP can make in their favor (or should be).
Link to Dist Ct op ???
—-
14-1 EPC — EQUAL ballot access test – ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26537086/Johnston_et_al_v_Lamone
docket – paperwork
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8466486/johnston-v-lamone/
same – pdf links
Why should there be any test based on party?
Let individual candidates qualify by bringing their supporters to the courthouse(s). Let’s say 0.01% of the last gubernatorial vote. For Maryland, that would be 231 persons for a statewide office and so on. If there are more than 10 candidates, extend the filing period. Top 10 qualify for the real election ballot, where they will be ordered by number of supporters. Candidates can also transfer their support to help other candidates qualify.
Real election will be in September, where a majority would be required for election, otherwise Top 2 qualify for runoff in November.