On January 31, the Montana House State Administration Committee passed HB 207, which increases the petition requirement for independent legislative candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties from 5% of the winning candidate’s vote in the last election, to 10% of the same base. Furthermore, only active registered voters could sign. Current law lets inactive voters sign. Also the bill shrinks the petitioning period, by changing the start date from January 9 to February 19. See this story.
The bill would be unconstitutional. No federal court has ever upheld a candidate petition requirement in excess of 5% of the number of registered voters. All of the independent petition requirements that were ever in excess of 5% have been struck down. Courts in Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio issued those opinions.
Montana could not argue that the ballot is crowded with two many legislative candidates. Last year, out of 100 State House races, only one independent was on the ballot. Ironically, the author of the bill is the only House member who faced an independent opponent.
For a full list of all decisions that have struck down requirements on the basis that they required too many signatures, see the April 1, 2016 print copy of Ballot Access News. Since that issue was published, there have been more such decisions, in Arkansas, Michigan, Nebraska, and South Dakota.
The original bill increased the petition requirement to 15% of the winner’s vote, and applied to all non-presidential candidates, not just legislative candidates.
“The bill would be unconstitutional. No federal court has ever upheld a candidate petition requirement in excess of 5% of the number of registered voters. All of the independent petition requirements that were ever in excess of 5% have been struck down. Courts in Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio issued those opinions.”
Where does it say 5% in the Constitution? Is it unconstitutional, or merely something that would overturn prior court decisions from other States?
Read the US Supreme Court opinion Anderson v Celebrezze. Just google it. When courts consider whether a ballot access requirement is too severe so that First Amendment freedoms are interfered with, they must balance the harm done to voters by the restriction, versus harm that would be done to the state if the law were struck down. Because Montana only had one independent candidate for the State House in 2024, out of 100 races, obviously the ballot isn’t too crowded. So there is no state interest in the increased requirement.
Can’t supreme court precedents be overturned?
Even if (or until) the precedent as a whole is overturned, what is magical about the 5% number?
EQUAL IN 14-1 AMDT
—
Q —
OVER-RULED OPS NOW ROUTINE WITH COMMIE/FASCIST 5-4 SWITCH CONTROL OF SCOTUS
If a constitutional amendment such as the 14th was improperly adopted, does it still have to be repealed in order to get rid of all laws and regulations that stemmed from its interpretation by courts in the time since it was improperly deemed to have “passed”?
“Ironically, the author of the bill is the only House member who faced an independent opponent.”
This is exactly why there is a conflict of interest. This is why you do not give a legislature control over the manner of their elections.
Is it within the powers of the supreme court to rule on whether a constitutional amendment was properly adopted? Can they later reverse themselves in a subsequent case? If they ruled it was improperly adopted, would it void it retroactively?