On February 3, Christopher Schmidt, an independent candidate for U.S. House in New York, filed a federal lawsuit against the 3,500 signature requirement for U.S. House independent candidates. He argues that the law is unconstitutional because primary candidates only need 1,250 signatures to run for U.S. House. Schmidt v New York State Board of Elections, n.d., 1:26cv-178. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Brindisi.
Many independent and minor party candidates have filed similar lawsuits over the past 50 years, but they always lose because in 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional to require such petitions, even if primary candidates for the same office need no petition whatsoever. That case is Jenness v Fortson, from Georgia, where Democrats and Republicans only needed a filing fee but eveeryone else needed a petition of 5% of the number of registered voters.
I’m actually curious to see what tortured use of the English language SCOTUS used to justify that ruling, because a plain reading indicates there are no exceptions against opposition parties and candidates in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Jeez Stock, do you ever stop your retarded trolling?
Jenness v Fortson is a very short decision, with only one sentence justifying the petition. The petition is deemed necessary to prevent ballot overcrowding, and to avoid spoilers, and to discourage fraud. There are no details. But the reference to fraud was all a mistake. At the oral argument Chief Justice Burger said he remembered a Nebraska election in which opponents of incumbent George Norris recruited an independent candidate also named George Norris to run and split the vote. But he remembered wrong. That happened in 1930 in the Republican primary, not the general election. As to spoilers, the decision did not mention ranked choice voting, but it should have because in 1968 in Williams v Rhodes, Justice Harlan had said that is the solution. As to overcrowded ballots, empirical evidence, presented in many cases since 1971, shows that as few as 5,000 signatures will keep ballots uncrowded.
Will “stop” trolling ever stop its retarded trolling?
Fascinating, thanks for the insight. So basically a combination of malice and ignorance, all packed into one sentence because even they probably realized that they couldn’t constitutionally justify their ruling with any details. Goes to show that even back then SCOTUS was arguably partisan, except in this case they were bi-partisan.
@ stop stalking
No.
What district is he running in?
The primary petition in New York to place major party candidates on primary ballots can only be signed by people who are registered to vote with the same political party under which the candidate is running.
Minor party and independent candidate petitions can be signed by any registered voter.
This makes a big difference.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/431/
JENNESS – BRAIN ROT
INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES NOMINATED/ELECTED —–
N-O-T ***PARTIES***.
SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL – 1954 BROWN V BD OF ED
Individual parties should be elected – ***NOT*** candidates.