Reply Brief Filed in Lawsuit Over New York’s May Petition Deadline for Independent Candidates

Posted on by February 12, 2024

On February 7, this reply brief was filed in Meadors v Erie County Board of Elections, 23-1054. This is the lawsuit over New York’s May petition deadline for independent candidates. In 2019 the New York legislature had changed that deadline from August to May. The case was filed in 2021 by supporters of Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, who submitted an independent candidate petition in July after he lost the primary in June. New York allows “sore losers”. But the Defendants say the early deadline is an indirect way to stop “sore losers”.

The reply brief points out that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Ohio’s independent candidate deadline in 1983 in Anderson v Celebrezze, even though the plaintiff in that case, John B. Anderson, was also a “sore loser”. The U.S. Supreme Court said in that case that early deadlines injure voters who otherwise might support an independent after the major parties have nominated their candidates, and that state deadllines must give voters a chance to do that, regardless of whether the independent candidate is a “sore loser” or not.

Comments

Reply Brief Filed in Lawsuit Over New York’s May Petition Deadline for Independent Candidates — 14 Comments

  2. The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Jenness v Fortson that the constitution does not require all candidate to be treated equally. Also the constitution does not require that all political parties be treated equally. If the Constitution required all candidates to be treated equally, the states could set an independent candidate petition deadline on the same day that primary candidates must file, which would be the year before the election in a few states like New Hampshire and Illinois. It is precisely that the constitution does not require equality for all candidates that we have good precedents on filing deadlines for independent candidates.

  3. You keep bringing up a case that has nothing to do with this. Are you autistic or just retarded?

  4. New York hadn’t had a “sore Loser” law because it allowed fusion. This is something that is not thoroughly understood. If a candidate can get on the ballot with more than one party line, but he loses one line, yet wins another in a primary, then that candidate has effectively circumvented any “sore loser” provision.

    IMO, this is one reason that fusion should be allowed.

  5. If all individual candidates had to qualify for the the same electoral event we would not have this ongoing litigation about different but supposedly equivalent qualification.

    When California adopted Top 2 all the requirements that independent candidates gather a bazillion signatures went away except for President which does not yet use Top 2.

  6. Top 2 is not the solution. It locks out minor parties and independents from the final election, and deprives major parties of controlling their nominations, sometimes forcing two candidates from the same party against each other in the final election.

  7. WILLIAMS V RHODES AND Jenness v Fortson

    BOTH COMBINED ABOUT AS GOOD AS THE INFAMOUS 1857 DRED SCOTT OP
    —
    SAME OLDE LAWYERS WITH SAME OLDE BAD ARGUMENTS SINCE 1968 = MORE LOSING CASES FOR 3RD PARTIES / INDEES.

    ALSO — GOP DEEMED *UNEQUAL* IN 1866-1870 IN EX-SLAVE STATES — NOT WORTHY OF GETTING *EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS* ???

  8. Obviously not as good as AZ’s arguments. Why wouldn’t you take advice from a guy who had never won in a case, and laughed out of court consistently?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.