A U.S. District Court will hear arguments in Montana Green Party v Stapleton, 6:18cv-87, on Thursday, December 11, in Great Falls. This is the case that challenges the unequal distribution requirement for the party petition, and also the March petition deadline. The case arose in 2018, when the Green Party had enough valid signatures statewide on its party petition, but in a few districts did not meet the distribution requirement.
The distribution requirement requires a certain number of signatures in each of 34 of the 100 State House districts. But, oddly, in some districts the number of signatures is as low as 55, while in others it is as high as 150. The Green Party argues that the law, by requiring unequal number of signatures in various districts (even though the districts are of approximate equal population), violates one-person, one-vote.
Here is the last brief, filed by the Green Party on October 25. UPDATE: the original post said the hearing would be December 5, but it has been moved to December 11.
The number of votes required to get a majority of the vote in some districts is 2.5 times as much as in other districts. This is the clearly an equal protection violation.
If Montana house districts were based on adult citizen population, and petition requirements based on total votes cast, then the issues would be resolved.
Simply setting a constant count per district does not resolve the equal protection issue.
i dont really get the justifaction for distribution requirements.
ALL divisions of a State are 100 pct arbitrary —
much too difficult for MORON lawyers and judges to detect/understand.
ALways changing populations of any type in such divisions.
@MB,
Consider the ratification requirements for amendments to the US Constitution. It is effectively a distribution requirement that requires a broader consensus, rather than that might be achieved by piling up popular support in limited areas.
It is really difficult to balance distribution requirements. In some cases it would be practically impossible to miss local goals while meeting the statewide goal. If there were 10 districts and you needed 1% in 5 districts and 2% statewide. If you got 0.99% in 6 districts just missing the distribution requirement, then you would need to average 3.5% in the remaining 4 districts to reach the statewide requirement. Or if you concentrated on exactly 5 districts but barely missed in one, you would have to get 4.75% in the other 4.
Nebraska and New Hampshire require the same number of signatures in ALl congressional districts, but they have few districts. The two districts in NH are similar. In Nebraska, petitioning in the western district may be harder because it is very rural. The largest city is Grand Island, with 51,000 people.
Montana is unique. The statewide cap is fixed at 5000, but turnout in Montana has grown, pushing the district requirements higher while just barely reaching a cap of 150. If a party gathered 50 signatures from every district in the state, thereby perfectly balanced, they would reach the statewide requirement, but fail in every district.
As it was, the Green Party had over 7200 validated signatures, while not collecting any signatures in 53 of 100 districts. But it turn it failed to get enough signatures in 1/3 of the districts (34 of 100). They ignored half the state, while failing to have enough concentrated support. That is not a distribution requirement. That is a maldistribution requirement.
They compound this by basing their district requirements on votes for the stastewide weinner in the district. If the Democrat did well in a district (82% was their best effort) more signatures were needed. If he did poorly (22% was the worst effort) few signatures were required.
If the statewide result was flipped, the district requirement would change drastically, some increasing by as much as 95, or decrease by 105.
Montana’s requirement is so inane that it doesn’t even reach the level of asrbitrary and capricious.
@DR,
Votes cast is reflective of the available signers in an area. Better than some outdated census that included children and non-citizens.
If there is a statewide vote on any office or issue all votes must be equal.
VOTERS VOTE- NOT NON-VOTERS – A TOTAL failure to follow up on Gray v Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) in the 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander cases.
—
THE BASIC point screwed up in all sorts of later election law cases.
Too many election law math MORONS to count since 1964 — mere 55 years and counting.
—
H Rep Donkeys did more ad hoc impeachment stuff today H Res 660 passed.
Zillion news stories.