On May 13, U.S. District Court Judge John Koeltl, a Clinton appointee, refused to enjoin the New York ballot access changes made in 2020. Libertarian Party of NY v New York State Board of Elections, s.d., 1:20cv-5820. The opinion says the 2% vote test for president/governor, and the new number of signatures for a statewide office (45,000), are not severe.
The decision cites only precedents that upheld state ballot access laws, and doesn’t mention any precedents that struck them down. It does not mention the March 29, 2021 decision of the Sixth Circuit that struck down Michigan’s 30,000-signature requirement for statewide independent candidates.
The decision cites several decisions upholding high vote tests for party status, but does not mention that in all of those precedents, the states had a petition procedure for an unqualified party to regain party status in advance of any election. Judge Koetl seems unaware that 39 states have such a procedure, but that New York does not.
The opinion says that New York has a state interest in keeping small parties off the ballot because otherwise the state would be forced to give public financing to the nominees of those parties. This is utterly untrue. The Second Circuit has already ruled that states can confine public funding to only the two largest parties. Judge Koeltl even mentioned that precedent, Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, for a side point from that opinion, but he didn’t mention the main holding of that opinion.
Judge Koetl wrote that because parties such as the “Rent is Too Damn High Party” and the “Stop Common Core Party” succeeded in placing a statewide nominee on the ballot in years when the petition requirement was 15,000, that shows the old requirement was too easy. Here is the 39-page opinion. The issue of declaratory relief is not yet settled and there will be a trial for the introduction of more evidence. Thanks to Michael Kuzma for the link.
TOTAL disaster NNN since 1968 ???
How many more to come via usual suspect MORON ballot access lawyers and worse judges unable to detect EQUAL in 14-1 Amdt ???
I wish biased partisan judges like these were disbarred and removed from their posts. They’re helping the ruling parties destroy what little remains of anything resembling free and fair democratic elections. Their rulings are literally flying in the face of multiple Constitutional Amendments for crying out loud…
>The opinion says that New York has a state interest in keeping small parties off the ballot because otherwise the state would be forced to give public financing to the nominees of those parties.
…Why shouldn’t they? How is it fair to confine public funding to only the Democrats and Republicans?
There will be s trial…..with this same judge?
“…Why shouldn’t they? How is it fair to confine public funding to only the Democrats and Republicans?”
Actually, the intent is effectively to limit public fund to just Democrats.
The public funding requires private matches. If they let candidates demonstrate support, more candidates would demonstrate support costing the state money. It is better to target the deserving Democrat legislators who are actually elected. Don’t cross Boss Cuomo or he will send your parents to nursing homes.
Manaanwasgreat, you are right that the policy is unjust, but the 2nd circuit approved it, so it is the law in the three states of the 2nd circuit, which includes New York.
Will the same judge preside at the trial for declaratory relief?
I am not able to fathom how the hard fought success of a couple of new parties is an argument against the former threshold. Their success petitioning, and their ability to maintain the ballot line, is an example of democracy functioning.
The number of national parties that have not been able to achieve a NYS ballot line, in spite of substantial support within the state, indicates that the threshold is too high. Why has there not been a constitution party, reform party, peace and freedom party, alliance party, or any socialist party ballot line. Democracy in a country as large as the US, and in a state as large as NY, requires at least a dozen active parties. There may be fewer dominant parties, but they should always be in jeopardy of losing their status to a competitor.
Still wondering.
Maybe you should use your real name rather than a fake name and an IP anonymizer.
The same for you, “Egyptian God”.
I’m not asking a question and expecting an answer like “Percy”. Everyone knows I am Lazarus Mudd, an associate of Nathan Norman.
“Lazurus Mudd” is a fake name, and I am not convinced that Nathan Norman is for real either. You would have more credibility around here if you came out from hiding behind fake names.
Check out this cool video about Andy:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XXcilxv1Vmk&feature=emb_title
You just took a transcript from an old Tom Knapp AMA (Ask Me Anything) from a few years ago where you sent him a question, and you made it into a video.
Is this one better?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3LP-FFzfoAk&feature=emb_title
I’m not using an IP anonymizer. I don’t even know what that is. Percy is my real name. I didn’t see that Val asked the same question earlier. My bad.
Lazarus Mudd actually sounds more like a fake name. My apologies if it’s not, then again I don’t care who you are or who your associate is, never heard of either of you either or why I’m suppose to care?
Also I’m not expecting answers, just wondering. If someone knows the answer that would be nice. If not, please mind ur business and move on. Should go without saying and thanks.