On August 15, Christopher Graveline, an independent candidate for Michigan Attorney General, filed this brief in his ballot access case, Graveline v Johnson, e.d., 2:18cv-12354.
He filed the case last year, against the requirement that he obtain 30,000 signatures by mid-July. He won injunctive relief and was placed on the ballot. Now the courts must decide if the requirement is unconstitutional. It is likely that they will, given that last year they felt his case was strong enough to merit injunctive relief.
Mich —
One of many States with UNEQUAL ballot access laws for INDIVIDUAL candidates.
SCOTUS MORONS since 1968 – with zillion lower court MORONS.
If the court there in Michigan sides with Graveline and lowers the signature requirements, it would be a strong precedent to use in any future ballot access lawsuit here in Illinois where the requirements are similar.
What number makes any ballot access quota threshold non-discriminatory? Maybe that number is one. If one voter wants to vote for a candidate, why should any number of voters be able to deny that voter the ability to have their vote counted?
All ballot access quotas whether petition signatures or financial fees act to disenfranchise some voters and magnify the power of other voters.
It was not always so. Quotas to have a name appear on a ballot is censoring a voter’s range of choices.
Before the secret ballot reform laws monopolized the publication of ballots by state governments – making the the ballot a public utility instead privately owned property of each voter – the quota to nominate a person for office was one – any voter could do it when marking their ballot. Each voter owned and controlled the content of the ballot like owning a newspaper. Casting a secret ballot was a matter of security logistics at the polling place having nothing to do with the actual content of any or all the ballots cast anonymously. Only later was the notion of the ballot as a scarce resource – as a monopoly – was the notions of quotas to winnow out certain voters appended to the election laws creating a ballot access problem.
The solution to ballot censorship is to stop censoring the ballot with quotas dictated by incumbent politicians and return the power to “winnow” out candidates without “winnowing” out voters. How? A content-neutral ballot without any candidate or party names. This is an open ballot write-in ballot. An existing example of such a ballot is the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot which voters outside of the U S can use to vote in U S elections. Simply make the FWAB the universal domestic ballot format for all voters in all elections. No censorship quotas for printing names needed because there are no names only blank spaces for the voters to publish their choices. The result is to restore ownership and control of the ballot to each individual voter – what is undemocratic about that? The present system of duopoly censorship of the ballot to manipulate election outcomes is not and never was democratic nor consistent with the principles of a republican form of government. It is a continuing massive fraud on the voters.
DFR –
Write-in spaces exist on most ballots. Notable exception – CA general elections after top 2 primaries.
IF no, then a 14-2 violation for specified 14-2 offices.
—
Good luck in deciphering ANY write-ins –
see AK USA Sen Murkowski write-in election- zillion mis-spellings – *intention* of voters.
—
What if MANY Smith / Jones / Johnson candidates for same office in same area — aka name game machinations ???
Also name games for multiple offices —
delays for months/years while ballots get checked for each office ???
and/or zillion ballots – one ballot per office ???
[my local ballots have about 15-20 offices on each current ballot]
Mere armies of handwriting decipher experts — working 24/7 to decipher write-in ballots ???
Sorry – NOOOO robotic AI for determining VOTES ???
Sorry – this AIN’T 1860-1868 [private ballots] or 1888-1890 [official ballots].
@DFR,
In 1903, when Texas adopted the Australian ballot, political parties who wished “to nominate” candidates were required to print ballots. They were required to meet certain format and style standards, and include a write-in space for each office. A voter would receive all ballots, which they would mark in the traditional way – crossing out unwanted candidates, and writing in alternatives. Only in 1905 was the process corrupted and the government took over the process (early ballots looked like the party ticvkets stitched together). The government had to decide who to put on the ballot.
But what if the government printed the ballot. A candidate would in effect pay to have their name advertised. There would still be a write-in space. Let’s say it costs 10 cents to print a ballot, and it holds 100 names. So the cost per name per ballot would be one mill. A statewide candidate would have a fee in the thousands of dollars. A congressional candidate would have a fee in the few hundreds of dollars.
Have a runoff if no candidate received a majority.
@ Jim Riley. Have you seen the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot? Why not make that format the universal ballot for all U S elections for voters foreign or domestic residents?