On August 3, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in Independent Party of Florida v Secretary, 20-12107. It upholds the denial of injunctive relief for the Independent Party, and the Party for Socialism & Liberation, to place their presidential nominees on the ballot. The law says if the party is not recognized by the Federal Election Commission, it must submit a petition of 1% of the number of registered voters, which this year is 132,781 signatures. The Independent Party can’t possibly be recognized by the FEC because the FEC won’t give recognition to parties organized in only one state. However, both plaintiff parties are ballot-qualified in Florida.
The decision’s second sentence is, “Decades ago, we upheld a Florida law that required minor parties to submit a petition signed by 3% of registered voters to access the ballot in statewide elections.” The decision says that because of the 1983 decision in Libertarian Party of Florida v State, 710 F.2d 790, the current petition must be constitutional. The decision also says on page eight, “At that time, Florida offered minor political parties only one path to the ballot: submitting a petition signed by 3% of registered voters.” These sentences are not true. Between 1969 and 1999, Florida allowed unqualified parties to place their presidential nominees on the ballot with a petition of 1% of the registered voters. Florida never had a 3% petition requirement for president. The 1983 lawsuit had no connection to the presidential election. It was filed in 1982 and concerned office other than president. The Libertarian Party had been on the Florida ballot for president in 1980.
Furthermore, the decision fails to mention that in 2017, the Eleventh Circuit struck down Georgia’s 1% petition for president. Nor does it mention the 1985 Eleventh Circuit decision Bergland v Harris, which said that the Georgia 2.5% presidential petition was also likely unconstitutional (the Bergland panel remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court for more fact-finding, but no more preceedings were held because the legislature lowered it to 1%). Ironically, the same judge who wrote the Florida Libertarian decision in 1983 (which did not relate to presidential elections) also wrote Bergland v Harris. Both decisions were written by Judge Paul Roney, who is no longer living.
Another error in the new decision is that the Florida Libertarian Party in 1983 was not ballot-qualified. By contrast, the two plaintiff political parties in the current case, the Independent Party, and the Party for Socialism & Liberation, are ballot-qualified. There is no possible state interest in keeping a ballot-qualified party from nominating a presidential candidate. Florida law already prevents ballot crowding by its requirements for party qualification. There has never been any state, other than Florida starting in 2016, which said that a ballot-qualified party still couldn’t be on the ballot for President unless it submitted a petition. This point is completely absent from the opinion. The opinion is by Judge William Pryor (a Bush Jr. appointee), and signed by Judge Robin Rosenbaum (Obama), and Robert Luck (Trump). The decision only upholds the denail of injunctive relief; the issue of the law’s constitutionality is still to be determined.
How many LOSING LP cases by the same old crew of USELESS LOSING so-called LP lawyers using same old LOSING arguments. ???
TOP LP folks in DC are generally NOT lawyers, come and go very often, and let the LOSING cases ROT accumulate —
failure to take DRASTIC action — IE PURGE ALL such lawyers ASAP.
FAILURE to ATTACK the entire line of SCOTUS ops –
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968),
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).
—–
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 INDIVIDUAL 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].
For the second time, I nominate Richard Winger to the Supreme Court. Someone who knows the law needs to slap down these ignorant judges.
WZ- At least have RW write ALL ballot access briefs and ALL arguments.
Get a day 1 law skooool graduate [NOT brain rotted since 1968] to sign stuff —
since folks like ACLU, Common Cause, etc. also have their useless / losing RED communist ballot access brain-rotted lawyers.
Demo rep, are you high? The new decision is about the Independent Party and PSL. Richard’s article mentions a Libertarian Party case from 1983, a winning Libertarian case from 1985, and a winning 2017 case in which the parties are not mentioned here but I seem to recall they may have been Green and Constitution. So in your mind the chief subject of this article is the losing 1983 libertarian case which was misquoted in the new opinion about a case brought by unrelated parties?
How many NATL/STATE/LOCAL LP Party LOSING ballot access cases since 1968 ???
HUNDREDS / THOUSANDS ???
KEEP WORRYING ABOUT DUST ON FLOOR — WHILE BEING BURIED ALIVE BY STATIST JUDGES
UPHOLDING ALL SORTS OF UNEQUAL BALLOT ACCESS LAWS/REGS.
Since 4 years before the party existed? A lot, I would think. But also a lot of winning ones as well. More than the IP, PSL, or any other party in that half century. You can’t win a bunch unless you file a bunch, and when you file a bunch you will also lose a bunch.
What is D-R’s win loss record since 1968? How recently has he filed? How many has he filed overall?
Some LPs were formed in 1968-1970 —
esp after the 1967 olde YAF convention in Pittsburgh, PA
the E-N-D for LP types with the Elephants.
1968- almost breakdown with Vietnam War and killer/moron LBJ, murder of M.L. King, murder of R. Kennedy, Donkey convention cop riot.
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), involved G. Wallace in Ohio – not the LP.
TKT can dig up the info.
“Some LPs were formed in 1968-1970 —”
Where can I find out more about this? 1971 was the first record I have ever heard mentioned.
From the key sentences Richard quotes here, it seems to me that the court’s error is in focusing on ballot access for whole minor parties — when what these parties were apparently asking for was ballot access for their Presidential candidates.
“Decades ago, we upheld a Florida law that required MINOR PARTIES to submit a petition signed by 3% of registered voters to access the ballot in statewide elections.”
“At that time, Florida offered MINOR POLITICAL PARTIES only one path to the ballot: submitting a petition signed by 3% of registered voters.”
After this and their crazy reversal in Hall v Merrill, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the 11th is now prejudiced against minor parties and independents. The new insane ruling by the district court in Alabama would have to be appealed to them as well, so LPA is probably completely screwed and about to be bankrupted once again with the court costs and fees.
Umm… I don’t see any errors. Florida is not Georgia. Why would striking a requirement in another state that has completely different laws have anything to do changing requirements in another state. Florida has relatively easy ballot access compared to Georgia. Georgia is a much harder state to get ballot access in, so lowering their requirements to help candidates makes sense. Additionally, comparing 1980’s Florida law to 2020’s Florida law is like comparing Miami Vice to Live PD. Things change, laws change, and situation Change. Florida went from being one of the most difficult states to obtain ballot access to one of the easier ones. So, the comparison is moot.
Florida law only requires that a party exist and be recognized by the FEC, which isn’t a burden. If the PSL wanted FEC recognition, it just has to run candidates in 14 states. If they’re unable to do that after, what 10 years of existence, they probably shouldn’t be on the ballot de to lack of support.
That’s false. The fec standard is opaque and arbitrary and that standard is not even in the laws at all.
According to advisory opinions, that is the standard.
It’s enforced arbitrarily and updates at random x years later. No one knows when that is going to take place. And it’s not anywhere in the actual law.
For the record, I was present at the founding of the Libertarian Party. David F. Nolan established the Committee to Form a Libertarian party in 1971 and the founding national convention was held in June of 1972. I was Chair of the Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Committee at that convention.