On August 8, the Arkansas Secretary of State asked the Eighth Circuit to remove the Libertarian Party from the ballot, or to at least expedite the state’s appeal. Here is the brief.
The state’s brief is fairly lengthy, but it never mentions that the Arkansas 3% petition requirement, the subject of the case, was held unconstitutional twice in the past, once in 1996 in a Reform Party case, and again in 2006 in a Green Party case. In the 1996 Reform Party case, the state appealed its loss to the Eighth Circuit, but then shortly before the oral argument, asked to withdraw its appeal. The Eighth Circuit then agreed to let the state withdraw only if it acknowledged that the Eighth Circuit was affirming the U.S. District Court decision.
The state’s new brief lays great emphasis on a past decision of the Eighth Circuit that upheld a North Dakota law. But the North Dakota law at issue did not prevent the North Dakota Libertarian Party from being a qualified party. The North Dakota case involved how many primary votes a minor party needed to poll in its own primary, for state legislative candidates.
The state’s new brief also points out that the Eleventh Circuit had upheld Alabama’s 3% petition requirement in 2007. But when that case was decided, the petition deadline was in June of the election year, and Alabama allowed an unlimited amount of time to gather the signatures. Also the Libertarian Party has fulfilled the 3% requirement in Alabama in 2000. By contrast, no group ever successfully met the Arkansas 3% petition, which was in effect 1977-2006.
ARBITRARY stuff for any ballot access for minor parties and independents – deadlines, percents, etc.
— due to SCOTUS hacks since 1968.
How about “physically remove” the Arkansas Secretary of State from office? What a jerk.
I read the brief. I probably would want to study it again to get some additional thoughts, but I keep coming back to a point that I’ve made before. If we accept, for the sake of argument, that the state has an interest in state-recognized parties having a “modicum of support”, then I still don’t understand why the state only provides one electoral avenue for showing this — namely votes for Governor or votes for POTUS. If we accept that a party should be able to garner 3% of the vote to remain “worthy” of continuing to be recognized AS A PARTY, then why should this be limited to one office? My party may not be able to win the Governor’s race, but being a party is also about influencing policy through any elective office, so I don’t understand why the state should limit this to votes for Governor. Looking at the 2018 Arkansas election results, the LP did far better than 3% in other statewide offices. That shows me they have a “modicum of support” (actually, more than a modicum)_.
As an aside, I hope that the “crowded ballot” argument gets laughed out of court as it truly deserves to be. How many races in Arkansas had only ONE candidate? I guess the Arkansas SOS adopts the standard from the old Soviet Union for determining whether a ballot is “crowded.”
What a bunch of pikers. Trump won Arkansas with 60% in 2016. No chance that any third party or independent candidate is going to affect the outcome. Just what are they afraid of?
It would appear that Dixiecrats may change their name but not their authoritarian outlook.
The Republican legislators are very eager to keep a Libertarian out of the 2020 US Senate race. Tom Cotton is running for re-election. The State Senator who authored the bill is a close associate of US Senator Cotton.
Cotton is a full blown Trumper. So, getting back to a point made earlier, Trump won Arkansas with 60% of the vote? What’s Cotton afraid of? Vote for the LP candidate may be taken from the Dem, making his reelection more secure. If Cotton is afraid of his potential Dem opponent, maybe he should work to make Arkansas ballot access laws easier, so that a Green Party candidate can join the race. Cotton is not only practicing despicable politics, but also dumb politics from the standpoint of his own personal political interests.
I sometimes joke with friends and family that I am “sad” that the two most despicable pro athletes share my first name. Now I also have to say that America’s most despicable politician shares it as well.
@ TomP: What? Are you Un-Patriot-ic??
@WALTER — Yes, I’m definitely Un-Patriot-ic. I also wish that I could Capitals-ize on that more.