U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Put Forward Party Statewide Nominees on Ballot

On September 17, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to put the Forward Party statewide nominees on the New Mexico ballot. Justice Neil Gorsuch made the decision himself, without referring the matter to the full Court.


Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Put Forward Party Statewide Nominees on Ballot — 12 Comments

  1. Not sure why the Forward Party even bothered with them, SCOTUS has been extremely hostile towards minor party rights.

  2. Was it because the party name deadnames New America? Or because they falsely call themselves Forward, when they are leftist, which is backwards?

  3. Some day one of these attempts will succeed. It is obviously phony for lower courts to cite the fear of crowded ballots in cases in which the evidence rebuts that fear. In all history, if a state requires more than 5,000 signatures, there will not be a crowded ballot, using the definition of “crowded ballot” issued by the US Supreme Court in Lubin v Panish, namely a dozen or more candidates for a single office. That evidence is in this case but so far no judge has referred to it.

  4. That’s a good point. If a party or candidate has the resources to try, might as well, just in case a miracle or a series of circumstances occur and the evidence is actually taken into consideration. Reminds me of Illinois in the 2020 election, where a number of us candidates sued to get ballot access relief because of the near-impossibility of petitioning during the pandemic, and we actually got a judge that seemed to care about the Constitution and free and fair elections enough to grant that relief.

  5. A write-in only ballot cannot be “crowded” to confuse voters. Election administration officials should able to count votes for more than 12 candidates.

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Your email address will not be published.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.