On January 30, the U.S. Supreme Court asked Arizona to respond to the cert petition filed by the Arizona Libertarian Party. This is the case over the state’s severe requirements for a members of a small ballot-qualified party to get on their own party’s primary ballot. The Arizona law is especially senseless and discriminatory, because it only applies to parties that have been ballot-qualified for more than four years. That is why, in 2016 and 2018, the Green Party (which had not been continuously ballot-qualified before 2016) was able to easily nominate candidates, whereas the Libertarian Party, which has more voter support as shown by voter registration records, could not.
The law let Greens win a Green Party nomination with just a single write-in vote in the Green Party’s primary in both 2016 and 2018, but required Libertarian write-in candidates to win thousands of write-ins, if they were running for statewide office.
This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the state for a response, in a ballot access case involving independent or minor party candidates, since 2011, when the Court asked Hawaii to respond to Nader v Nago. When the Court asks for a state response, that shows it is somewhat interested in the case. In the case of Nader v Nago, though, ultimately the Court did not hear the case.
The state response is due March 2. That means that organizations that wish to file an amicus curiae brief also have until March 2 to file something.
Same old FAILING LP arguments(s) ???
———–
For amicus lawyers with ANY 14-1 EQUAL brain cells —
Equal Ballot Access Brief, 7 NOV 2019
The fundamental constitutional principle of SEPARATE-IS-NOT-EQUAL in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954), was unfortunately N-O-T brought up in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) — the first *modern* ballot access case in SCOTUS.
Every State has SEPARATE and UNEQUAL ballot access laws for the candidates for partisan offices —
(1) old or new major parties,
(2) old or new minor parties,
(3) and independents.
[At least 5 classes – Specify for State involved].
Also, the following basic points have not been properly noticed —
(1) there is ONE class of electors in a general election,
(2) there is ONE class of candidates on the general election ballots (i.e. a candidate is on or off the ballots) and
(3) each general election for each office is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior general election — for such office (or any other office) — or any other thing since 4 July 1776 — EXCEPT the number of actual voters at the prior general election in the election area of the office involved — for having EQUAL nominating petitions at the next election (see below).
A-L-L ballot access cases have failed to note such basic points including —
Williams,
Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971),
American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974),
Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986),
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992) and
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008).
[I.E. suggest/demand that ALL of the cases beginning with Williams be overruled.]
The Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amendment, Sec. 1 requires that all INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME election area pass the SAME (i.e. *EQUAL*) test(s) for ballot access to get on state or local general election ballots.
Obviously an *EQUAL* nominating petition for ALL INDIVIDUAL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area will show which INDIVIDUAL candidates have a preliminary showing of voter support.
See also Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) (equal regional treatment of electors who sign petitions) and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-636 (1996) (discrimination against homosexuals).
The Moore case was noted in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 107 (2000).
—-
The cases can be seen via—
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-757.html
docket stuff — check for updates