IOWA MARCH PETITION DEADLINE STRUCK DOWN

On April 8, U.S. District Court Magistrate Helen Adams, an Obama appointee, ruled that Iowa’s petition deadline for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties is unconstitutional. Libertarian Party of Iowa v Pate, s.d., 4:19cv-241.

The Iowa deadline had been in August, until 2019, when the legislature moved it to March. All of the briefs had been filed by March 2021, so there had been a long wait for this opinion.

After the opinion came out, the Secretary of State filed papers with the court, indicating that the office will now consider the old August deadline to be in force. Therefore, the deadline this year will be August 19. It seems extremely likely that there will be no appeal.

There are now 54 court decisions that have struck down minor party or independent candidate petition deadlines on the grounds that they are too early. They have been won in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. The list of these decisions is in the March 1, 2019 B.A.N. See ballot-access.org for links to past print issues that are at least 30 days old. The links are on the upper right.

As a result of the Iowa decision, it is likely that additional minor party and independent candidates will qualify for the 2022 election. Prior to the decision, the only statewide minor party or independent candidate who had qualified this year was the Libertarian Part nominee for Governor.

On April 12, U.S. District Court Judge Leigh May re-opened Cowen v Raffensperger. This is the lawsuit filed by the Georgia Libertarian Party against the 5% petition for U.S. House candidates who are not Republicans or Democrats. She determined that part of the case had never been adjudicated, and she set a briefing schedule for that part of the case.

The issue to be briefed is whether the law, passed in 1943, had been passed with discriminatory intent. The evidence shows that law was pssed in order to block the Communist Party from the ballot. Before 1943 Georgia permitted any party to be on the ballot with no petition and no filing fee, and under that lenient standard, the Communist Party had been on in Georgia for the first time in 1928.

The main issue in the case, the First Amendment part, had been won by the Libertarian Party in 2019, but then the Eleventh Circuit this year had reversed. On March 31, the Eleventh Circuit refused to reconsider its decision.

The law is the most severe ballot access barrier in the United States. No minor party candidate has completed a 5% petition (of the number of registered voters) for U.S. House in any state, in the history of the nation. The evidence shows that at least twenty candidates in Georgia had tried, and all had failed. Yet the Eleventh Circuit had ruled the requirement is "not severe".

The re-opened part of the case will be on hold, until the Libertarian Party first asks the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Eleventh Circuit.

Recently, three courts issued very different decisions about whether states can keep congressional candidates off the ballot for promoting insurrection. Voters had challenged the ballot position of Congressmembers Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and Madison Cawthorn. The challengers said those candidates should be barred from the ballot because they had taken an oath to the Constitution, and then had supported a violent attempt to stop Congress from counting the electoral college votes.

Georgia: on April 18, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg refused to enjoin the state from holding hearings on Congresswoman Greene. The decision says that states can evaluate congressional candidates qualifications. Greene v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:22cv-1294.

Arizona: on April 22, a state trial court ruled that states cannot evaluate whether congressional candidates are qualified. This decision was thus favorable to Congressmen Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar. Hansen v Finchem, Superior Court, Maricopa County, CV2022-004321.

North Carolina: on March 10, U.S. District Court Judge Richard E. Myers ruled on Congressman Cawthorn’s lawsuit to stop election officials from adjudicating a challenge to his ballot status. The judge side-stepped the qualifications issue, and said that in 1872, Congress had issued a blanket amnesty for all past and future cases involving the "insurrection" language. Cawthorn v Circosta, e.d., 5:22cv-50.

Alaska: on April 25, the House State Affairs Committee passed SB 161, which eases the definition of a qualified party. It had passed the State Senate on March 25, with a unanimous vote. Existing law requires it to have registration of 3% of the last vote cast, which is currently 10,821 members. The bill changes that to exactly 5,000. If the bill passes, the Libertarian Party will be back on the ballot.

Arizona: on March 14, the Senate passed SB 1460 by 17-12. It lets independent candidates use electronic signatures. Currently primary candidates can use electronic signatures, but no other types of petition can do that. Unfortunately the bill also moves the deadline to file as a write-in candidate from 40 days before an election to 106 days.

Hawaii: on April 8, Governor David Ige signed HB 1471. It eases the petition to create a qualified party. The old law required the petition signers to list their birthday. The new law only requires the month and day, but not the year.

Oregon: on March 24, Governor Kate Brown signed SB 1527. It lowers the registration requirement for a party to remain qualified, from one-half of 1%, to one-fourth of 1%. The new law keeps the Working Families Party on the ballot. Parties also remain qualified if they poll 1% of the vote for a statewide office at either of the last two elections.

Tennessee: on March 17, the House defeated HB 2067 by two votes. It would have lowered the petition to create a new party from 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1%. The sponsor had received pledges from 53 House members that they would vote for the bill. It needed 49 votes, but only received 47. Only 35 votes were cast against the bill, but fifteen representatives didn’t vote, and an abstention has the same effect as a "no" vote.

On March 31, U.S. District Court Judge Sara Darrow upheld the Illinois 5% (of the last vote cast) petition for independent and minor candidates, in U.S. House elections. Gill v Scholz, m.d., 3:16cv-3221.

On April 20, David Gill, an independent candidate who had brought the lawsuit in 2016, filed a notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit.

No petitioning candidate for U.S. House in Illinois has succeeded in completing the 5% petition since 1974. Some petitioning candidates since then got on the ballot anyway, though, because in Illinois, candidates who aren’t challenged are placed on the ballot even if they didn’t have enough signatures.

Back in 1974, Illinois petitions could start as early as desired. It was only in 1985 that Illinois law was changed to restrict the petitioning period, to just three months.

Judge Darrow said the law is constitutional because in the history of the entire United States, there are six instances when a petitioning candidate for U.S. House had managed to collect more than 10,754 signatures, which is the requirement that Gill faced.

The notion that a law is constitutional just because it has ever been successfully used has never been the position of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 5% petition for Mayor of Chicago, on behalf of the Socialist Workers Party. Yet the Socialist Workers Party had successfully met the 5% petition requirement in the 1975 Chicago Mayoral election. Also, in 1983, the Supreme Court struck down Ohio’s March petition deadline for independent presidential candidates, even though five presidential candidates had successfully qualified in Ohio that year.

California: on April 6, the Assembly Elections Committee defeated AB 2808, which would have banned charter cities and counties from using Ranked Choice Voting for their own elections.

Maine: on April 7, Governor Janet Mills signed LD859, which lets cities and towns used Ranked Choice Voting for their own elections.

Vermont: on April 27, the legislature passed HB 744, which lets Burlington use Ranked Choice Voting. The voters of Burlington had voted in favor of this in March 2022, but their vote can’t take effect without legislative approval.

Mississippi: the legislature adjourned for the year without passing HC 39, the proposed constitutional amendment that would have restored the statewide initiative process. Both houses had passed the bill, but the versions in each house differ. The Senate wanted approximately 200,000 signatures to qualify an initiative; the House wanted approximately 75,000.

Missouri: on April 6, the House passed HJR 131, a proposed constitutional amendment that guarantees that parties may have nominees. There is an initiative circulating to abolish the ability of parties to have nominees (except presidential nominees). If the initiative gets on the ballot, and the bill passes, both would be on the November ballot. Because the two measures contradict each other, whichever gets the most votes would take effect, if both get a majority.

Tennessee: on March 28, the legislature passed HB 2764. It imposes a duration of residency requirement for candidates for Congress. Governor Bill Lee let the bill become law on April 13. It is unconstitutional under the decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton.

On March 30, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris approved the settlement between the Secretary of State and the Green Party, thus putting the party on the ballot.

The Ninth Circuit had ruled in favor of the Green Party last year. The Ninth Circuit had invalidated the unequal distribution requirement in the law regulating the petition for party recognition. The case, which had been filed in 2018, had lost in the U.S. District Court, and so the party was kept off the ballot in both 2018 and 2020 due to an unconstitutional law.

By the time Judge Morris approved the settlement, the deadline for candidates to file for the Green Party primary had already passed. However, two Greens had filed for the primary beforehand, and they will be on the ballot. They are running for State House. There are no statewide races in Montana this year.

On April 14, the Republican National Committee voted unanimously not to let their 2024 presidential nominee participate in debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The party feels that the Commission has in the past chosen moderators who are biased against the Republican nominee.

The Dallas Morning News ran an editorial on April 24, saying this is good news, and now perhaps a new sponsor for debates will arise that will be open to letting some minor party and independent candidates be invited into the debates. The Commission has never allowed any minor party or independent candidate into any of its debates, except in 1992 both the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee insisted to the Commission that Ross Perot be invited. President George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both felt it would be advantageous to them if Perot was in.

On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Libertarian Party of Alabama v Merrill, 21-1288. This is the case that challenged the Alabama law that said the list of registered voters is given free to the qualified parties, but unqualified parties must pay $37,000.

In 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court had affirmed a U.S. District Court decision in New York that said if the state gives the list free to the qualified parties, it must also give the list free to unqualified parties that are petitioning. Except in this case, every other lower court had followed that principle every time it arose.

The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) had filed an amicus curiae brief, bringing the Court’s attention to the fact that the United States had signed the Copenhagen Meeting Document in 1990. We, and the other nations who signed (including the Soviet Union) promised "to respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law."

The Alabama Libertarian Party especially needed the list because it is engaged in a very difficult petition drive, and wished to use the list to check petition validity.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused all election law cert petitions filed by minor parties and independent candidates for the last 31 years (except for one case when the major parties were in the lawsuit along with a minor party). But in the same period, several times when minor parties won in the court below, and the state asked for U.S. Supreme Court review, the Court accepted the case.

On April 18, the New York Libertarian Party sued to overcome the state ban on out-of-state circulators. Schmidt v Kosinski, e.d., 1:22cv-2210. New York is the only state that still bans out-of-state petitioners for all types of candidate petitions. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan, a Bush Jr. appointee.

The party won a similar lawsuit against New York in 2017. The state appealed. By the time the appeals court heard the case, the party had gained qualified status for the first time (in November 2018), so the appeals court said the issue was moot. But, then the legislature removed the party from the ballot in 2020, so the issue is ready to be settled again.

On April 8, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Mecinas v Hobbs, 20-16301. This is the lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party against the Arizona law on the order of candidates on the general election ballot. The law says the party that carried a particular county in the last gubernatorial election may have to top spot on the ballot for all its nominees. The lower court had said the party doesn’t have standing, and that even if the party did have standing, ballot order cases can’t be adjudicated because they are "political".

The Ninth Circuit did not strike down the law, but it sent the case back to the U.S. District Court with instructions to rule in favor of the Democratic Party if the evidence shows that order of candidates has any effect on election results. There is already lots of evidence that it does. The Democratic Party had sued six states over ballot order in 2020, and this is the first case the party is likely to win.

State	Case Name	Year	Court	Citation	Restriction
Hi	People’s Party v Ariyoshi	1973	US District	Cv72-3620	1% from all four of the counties
Id	Populist Party v Evans	1984	9th circuit	84-4108	20% limit on sigs from single county
Id	Ida Coalition for Bears v Cenarrusa	2003	9th circuit	342 F 3d 1073	6% from 22 of the 44 counties
Ill	Moore v Ogilvie	1969	US Supreme	394 US 814	200 sigs from 50 of the 102 cos.
Ill	Communist Party of Ill. V Ogilvie	1975	7th circuit	518 F 2d 517	13,000 sig limit from single county
Ma	Baird v Davorem	1972	US District	346 F Supp 515	33% limit from single county
Mi	Socialist Workers Party v Hare	1969	US District	304 F Supp 534	100 sigs from 10 of the 83 counties
Mt	Montana PIRG v Johnson	2005	US District	361 F S 2d 1222	5% from 28 of the 56 counties
Ne	Libertarian Party of Neb v Beermann	1984	US District	598 F Supp 57	1% from 19 of the 93 counties
Nv	ACLU of Nevada v Lomax	2006	9th circuit	471 F 3d 1010	10% from 13 of the 17 counties
Nv	Marijuana Policy Project	2008	US District	578 F S 2d 1290	prop. share from all 17 counties
NY	Socialist Workers Pty v Rockefeller	1970	US District	314 F Supp 984	50 sigs from 61 of the 62 counties
Oh	Socialist Labor Party v Rhodes	1970	US District	318 F Supp 1262	200 sigs from all 88 counties
Pa	Elliott v Shapp	1979	US District	e.d., 76-1277	100 sigs from 10 of the 67 counties
Pa	Constitution Party of Pa v Cortes	2017	3rd circuit	877 F 3d 480	250 sigs from 10 of the 67 counties
RI	McCarthy v Garrahy	1978	US District	460 F Supp 1042	25 sigs from all five of the counties
Ut	Gallivan v Walker	2002	St. Supreme	54 P 3d 1069	10% from 20 of 29 counties
Wy	Blomquist v Thomson	1984	10th circuit	739 F 2d 525	50% limit on sigs from single county

These decisions struck down county distribution requirements for petitions. Some of the requirements were quite moderate. For example, see the Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island requirements above. Nevertheless, the courts agreed in all of these cases that counties cannot be used as units in a statewide petition requirement, because they are unequal in population. When counties are used, a voter in a low-population county has more power than a voter in a high-population county.

States that still have county distribution requirements are Arizona (for the petition for a new party), Iowa (for independent candidate petitions, and petitions for the nominees of unqualified parties), and Pennsylvania (for petitions to get on a primary ballot for state office). No one has sued to overturn these requirements. The purpose of this chart is to be a reference aid for any such future lawsuits.

The chart above does not list the Ninth Circuit decision from 2021 in Montana, which did not involve counties, but which was settled on the same principles. In the Montana case, the districts were equal population legislative districts, but the law required widely differing number of signatures from each of the districts.

State	Case Name	Year	Court	Citation	Judicial Relief
Al	Hall v Bennett	2016	US District	212 F S 3d 1148	cut number of signatures
Fl	Turin v State of Florida	1982	US District	82cv-1819	allow extra 69 days
Fl	Migala v Martinez	1989	US District	89cv-40168	cut sigs 67%, and extra 57 days
Ga	Citizens Party of Ga. v Poythress	1982	11th circuit	82-8411	allow extra 30 days
Ga	Parker v Barnes	2002	US District	1:02cv-1883	cut signatures 33%
Il	Jones v McGuffage	2013	US District	921 F S 2d 888	cut sigs from 15,682 to 3,444
Md	Mathers v Morris	1981	4th circuit	649 F 2d 280	allow extra 22 days
Mt	Breck v Stapleton	2017	US District	259 F S 3d 1126	cut sigs from 14,268 to 400

These decisions gave relief to petitioning minor party and independent candidates, when the normal petitioning period was shorter than usual. Petitioning periods are often much shorter than normal in special elections, which generally have a compressed time schedule. Petitioning periods are also shortened when redistricting must occur and it doesn’t happen quickly.

There are several states in 2022 in which the normal petitioning time is shortened because redistricting is taking so long, or which took so long: Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio. Minor party and independent candidates in these states who are having trouble finishing petitions should know that they can seek judicial relief, either for fewer signatures, or a deadline extension. Besides the cases listed above, there were court decisions in many states in 2020 that also cut the petitioning burden due to the Covid health crisis.

The Alabama decision listed above came after the special congressional election was over, so the relief was never made specific, but the decision says that in future special elections, the number of signatures should be lowered.

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES OR REGIS. OBTAINED				DEADLINES
	FULL PARTY	CANDIDATE	LIB’T	GREEN	CONSTI	PEOPLES	Party Due	Indp. Due
Ala.	51,588	51,588	*73,000	0	0	0	May 24	May 24
Alaska	(reg) 10,821	pay fee	* 6,822	*1,479	*699	0	May 3	June 1
Ariz.	31,686	(est) #40,670	already on	0	0	0	Nov 25 ‘21	May 4
Ark.	10,000	10,000	already on	0	0	0	Dec 24 ‘21	May 2
Calif.	(reg) 72,618	65 + fee	already on	already on	*too late	*too late	Jan. 4	March 11
Colo.	(reg) 1,000	#8,000	already on	already on	already on	500	Jan. 14	July 14
Conn.	no procedure	#7,500	already on	already on	0	0	– – –	Aug. 10
Del.	(reg) 755	7,549	already on	*735	*267	0	Aug. 23	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	#3,000	already on	already on	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	Aug. 10
Florida	0	pay fee	already on	already on	already on	already on	April 29	May 6
Georgia	72,336	#64,354	already on	0	0	0	July 12	July 12
Hawaii	833	25	already on	already on	already on	0	*Feb. 24	June 7
Idaho	17,348	1,000	already on	0	already on	0	Aug. 30	March 11
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	*1,800	*0	*0	*0	– – –	July 13
Indiana	no procedure	#44,935	already on	*in court	0	0	– – –	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	*#3,500	*already on	0	0	0	– – –	*Aug. 19
Kansas	21,102	5,000	already on	0	0	0	June 1	Aug. 1
Ky.	no procedure	#5,000	0	0	0	0	– – –	Aug. 9
La.	(reg) 1,000	#pay fee	already on	already on	(rg) 267	0	Aug. 19	Aug. 19
Maine	(reg) 5,000	#4,000	already on	already on	0	*0	*Jan. 3	June 1
Md.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	0	0	Aug. 1	Aug. 1
Mass.	(est) (reg) 45,500	#10,000	*300	(rg) 5,709	(rg) 370	0	Feb. 1	Aug. 2
Mich.	42,506	12,000	already on	already on	already on	0	July 21	July 21
Minn.	163,859	#2,000	0	0	0	0	April 30	May 31
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	0	March 1	March 1
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	*3,000	already on	*3,500	July 25	July 25
Mont.	5,000	#16,959	already on	*already on	0	0	Feb. 4	May 31
Nebr.	6,980	4,000	already on	0	0	0	Aug. 1	Sep. 1
Nev.	13,557	250	already on	(rg) 2,499	already on	0	April 27	May 13
N. Hamp.	23,798	#3,000	*500	0	0	0	Aug. 9	Aug. 9
N.J.	no procedure	*#600	*finished	0	0	0	– – –	June 7
N. M.	3,483	*13,932	already on	*4,400	0	0	June 30	June 28
N.Y.	no procedure	#45,000	*4,000	*3,000	*0	*0	– – –	*May 31
No. Car.	13,757	82,542	already on	*9,000	*2,000	0	May 17	March 8
No. Dak.	7,000	1,000	*0	0	0	0	April 11	Sep. 5
Ohio	57,630	5,000	0	0	0	100	July 6	May 2
Okla.	35,592	pay fee	already on	0	0	0	Feb. 28	April 15
Oregon	27,960	23,737	already on	already on	already on	*3,000	Aug. 30	Aug. 30
Penn.	no procedure	5,000	*1,000	*200	*0	*0	– – –	Aug. 1
R.I.	18,758	#1,000	0	0	0	0	Aug. 1	July 15
So. Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	0	May 8	July 15
So. Dak.	3,393	3,393	already on	0	0	0	July 1	April 26
Tenn.	56,083	25	0	0	0	0	Aug. 10	April 7
Texas	83,435	83,435	already on	already on	*0	*0	May 15	June 23
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	*too late	already on	0	Nov 30 ‘21	*March 4
Vermont	be organized	#500	already on	0	0	0	Jan 31	Aug. 18
Virginia	no procedure	#11,000	0	0	0	0	– – –	June 21
Wash.	no procedure	#pay fee	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	can’t start	– – –	May 20
West Va.	no procedure	#7,614	already on	already on	0	0	– – –	Aug. 1
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	already on	*200	already on	0	April 1	June 1
Wyo.	5,418	5,418	already on	0	already on	0	June 1	Aug. 28
TOTAL STATES ON			*35	*16	13	1	~

#partisan label permitted.
"(rg.) = registered members.
*change since March 1 2022 BAN.
NJ, Va, & WV have no statewide races up in 2022, so requirement refers to full slate for US House.

Congressman Don Young of Alaska died on March 18. Alaska will hold a special election to fill the vacancy on June 11. Under the new system created in November 2020, there are no party nominees. Candidates file as individuals, although the party they are registered in is listed on the ballot. The top four will then run on August 16, and in the August election (but not the June election) ranked choice voting will be used.

51 candidates filed, but three withdrew, so now there will be 48: 21 independents, 16 Republicans, six Democrats, three Libertarians, one Alaskan Independence, and one American Independent. It seems obvious that no minor party candidate will qualify for the August ballot.

Betsy Johnson was an Oregon state representative for four years, and an Oregon State Senator for fifteen years. She was always elected as a Democrat. However, now she is an independent candidate for Governor, and she has raised more money for her campaign than any other candidate for that office. She is a former director of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Although she could probably have easily won the nomination of the Independent Party (which is ballot-qualified), instead she is petitioning as a true independent candidate.

On April 5, Pennsylvania held a special election to fill the vacancy in the State House, district 116. The results: Republican 65.50%; Democratic 29.56%; Libertarian 4.94%. When this seat had been up in November 2020, the percentages had been: Republican 72.31%; Democratic 27.69%.

For the second election in a row, no Democrat filed in South Dakota to run for U.S. House. In 2020 the only candidate running against the Republican incumbent was a Libertarian, who got 19.04%. This year, the Libertarians are running Collin Duprel for that office.

On April 23, the Utah Democratic Party state convention voted not to nominate anyone for U.S. Senate. Instead the convention endorsed Evan McMullin, an independent candidate for that office. McMullin is also endorsed by the United Utah Party, and by the American Solidarity Party.

On April 19, newspapers in New York reported that the state chair of the Democratic Party, Jay Jacobs, intended to support the creation of a new party inside New York state, the "Fair Deal Party. " That party would then cross-endorse Democratic nominees. But on April 23, Jacobs said he had received assurances that the Working Families Party would cross-endorse whomever the Democrats nominate for Governor, and that he no longer intended to establish te Fair Deal Party.

On April 25, a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll was released, showing that 58% of voters would be open to supporting a centrist independent presidential candidate in 2024 if President Biden and former President Trump are the major party nominees.