On August 12, attorneys for Arkansas filed this brief in Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Thurston, e.d., 4:19cv-214. The case involves the law requiring a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote for a party to gain access. Although the law was enjoined in 2019, the issue of the constitutionality of the law is still pending in U.S. District Court.
The state’s brief has many errors. It claims that no U.S. Court of Appeals has ever struck down a ballot access petition that was 5% or less. Actually the Eighth Circuit struck down North Dakota’s party petition in 1980, in McLain v Meier, and that was a petition of 15,000 signatures, which worked out to 3.3% of the number of eligible voters. The Sixth Circuit struck down Michigan’s independent statewide petition requirement of 30,000 signatures this year, and that was less than 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. The Eleventh Circuit struck down Georgia’s minor party and independent presidential petition in 2017, and that was 1% of the number of registered voters. The Seventh Circuit struck down the Illinois 5% petition for Mayor of Chicago in 1978, a decision which the U.S. Supreme Court approved in 1979.
The state’s brief says the 3% petition is not severe, despite the fact that it was first passed in 1977 and no party ever succeeded in using it. The state’s brief says the 3% petition is not severe because in 2022, the petition is not due until December 24, 2021, a statement that is truly absurd, and which ignores the fact that the old party petition deadline of April had been held unconstitutional in 1977, and that the old January (of the election year) deadline had again been held unconstitutional in 1996. The state claims that the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld a 3% party petition in 2006, but actually that decision concerned the number of signatures for statewide independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, which was 3,000 signatures, less than 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.
The brief claims that parties can get on for president in Arkansas with 1,000 signatures, ignoring the fact that the 2021 legislature increased that petition to 5,000 signatures.
14-1 AMDT still has EQUAL.
Too many MORON lawyers and worse *judges* to count.
Will/CAN RW write the AR LP brief ???
Jim Linger is the nation’s longest-serving ballot access constitutional attorney, and he will be writing the reply brief for the Libertarian Party. He has been doing ballot access constitutional lawsuits starting in 1980. He has won ballot access constitutional cases in Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, and maybe some more that I can’t remember just now. He is currently representing the Montana Green Party in the 9th circuit against the unequal distribution requirement for the party petition.
I think that 3% is too high, but what percentage would be ok?
INDIVIDUAL PERSONS [N-O-T ***PARTIES***] GET NOMINATED AND ELECTED.
—-
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
My research, which has been presented to several courts, shows that the best way to evaluate petition requirements is by raw number of signatures, not percentage. Furthermore, if a state requires more than 5,000 signatures, it will not have a crowded ballot, if “crowded” means more than 8 candidates for a single office. Justice Harlan said in Williams v Rhodes that he didn’t think 8 candidates for a single office would confuse anybody. There are only two instances when a state that required more than 5,000 signatures had more than 8 candidates for a single office on the general election ballot: New York 1980 and New York 1996 (both times there were 9 candidates for president). New York required 20,000 signatures in 1980 and 15,000 in 1996.
Ongoing failure to note 1954 Brown v Bd of Ed in ballot access cases —
separate is NOT equal >>> VIOLATION of 14-1 EP Cl.
Separate / UNEQUAL ballot access laws for major party candidates / minor party candidates / independent candidates.
Too many MORON lawyers and worse judges – during and since 1968 Williams v Rhodes – mere 53 years of ROT.
I’m rooting for the state.