On May 18, the Ohio House passed one of the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bills, HB 194. The bill is apparently an attempt to repair the old law for minor party ballot access, because the old law was held unconstitutional in 2006. The bill moves the petition deadline (to qualify a new party) from 120 days before the primary, to 90 days before the primary. It also moves the entire primary (for President and all other office) in presidential election years from March to May. Therefore, if this bill is signed into law, the 2012 petition deadline will be early February. In Jenness v Fortson, the U.S. Supreme Court said a February petition deadline to qualify a new party is “unreasonably early.” Therefore, this bill, if signed into law, would likely still be unconstitutional.
The bill does not lower the number of signatures for a new or minor party, nor does it change the vote test for a party to remain ballot-qualified. The omnibus election law bill in the Senate, SB 148, at least lowers the number of signatures from 1% of the last vote cast, to one-half of 1% of the last vote cast. Also the Senate bill has a special provision for parties that only want to run for President to submit signatures 80 days before the general election, but the House bill does not. Thanks to Frontloading HQ for the news about HB 194 passing the House.
Pingback: Ohio House Passes Bill to Make Slight Ballot Access Improvement | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Jenness v Fortson was contrasting the statutes in Ohio that were at issue in Williams v Rhodes with those in Georgia.
The decisions stressed that it was the totality of Ohio’s laws that were the problem. You’re making a presumption that it was individual aspects of Ohio’s laws that were at issue.
SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
—
NOT brought up by the party hack SCOTUS MORONS in both 1968 Williams and 1971 Jenness — at a time of MAJOR political chaos in the U.S.A.
Thus ALL of the totally ARBITRARY JUNK opinions in 1968-2011 about ballot access for new/old minor parties and independents.
P.R. and App.V.
Interestingly, I emailed the SOS office a couple weeks ago asking how a “minor party” became qualified in Ohio absent a ballot access law; I’ve yet to receive a response.
#2, that sentence in Jenness v Fortson’s sentence is not about the totality of Ohio’s laws. The sentence is, “Unlike Ohio, Georgia does not fix an unreasonably early filing deadline for candidates not endorsed by established parties.” The sentence stands alone and the only subject of the sentence is early petition deadlines. An “unreasonably early filing deadline” is unreasonable regardless of other characteristics of the petition. And in Anderson v Celebrezze, the US Supreme Court said a petition deadline of March 20 (even though only 5,000 signatures were required, approximately one-tenth of 1% of the number of voters) was unconstitutional all by itself.
#5 I’ll quote the entire paragraph:
But the Williams case, it is clear, presented a statutory scheme vastly different from the one before us here. Unlike Ohio, Georgia freely provides for write-in votes. Unlike Ohio, Georgia does not require every candidate to be the nominee of a political party, but fully recognizes independent candidacies. Unlike Ohio, Georgia does not fix an unreasonably early filing deadline for candidates not endorsed by established parties. Unlike Ohio, Georgia does not impose upon a small party or a new party the Procrustean requirement of establishing elaborate primary election machinery. Finally, and in sum, Georgia’s election laws, unlike Ohio’s, do not operate to freeze the political status quo. In this setting, we cannot say that Georgia’s 5% petition requirement violates the Constitution.
Pingback: Ohio House Passes Bill to Make Slight Ballot Access Improvement · Hammer of Truth
#4 .
Maybe you should just ask the LP in Ohio and get your answer. It’s simple. There is no law, per court cases in 2006 and 2008.
Ohio has some “missing” links to the stone age and unfortunately I still live here.
I am getting my suits pressed. Going to need them for some “quality” time once again.
@Kevin, just got a reply from LPO:
“The reason you probably haven’t gotten a response is because the legislature is currently dealing with that issue. Based on language passed by the Ohio House this week, the method would become petitioning to gather slightly over 40,000 valid signatures by 90 days before the Ohio primary election. Language in the Senate version of the bill last week required only slightly more than 20,000 valid signatures but had an earlier filing deadline.
Thank you,
Michael Johnston”
not helpful, so I responded:
“Let me rephrase the question; how did the LP become qualified absent a law? I’m looking to get the BTP qualified before a large hurdle gets erected.”
will let you know if I get any helpful info.
Darryl,
LP was grandfathered in due to the petition Andy and I worked on in 2007 and their standing as a party that had been on the ballot, and as part of the lawsuit.
BTP can’t qualify that way, you would just have to wait until the legislature passes a way for you to qualify, or press your own separate lawsuit – say, that the lack of such a method at present hampers your ability to plan ahead.
The reply I got from Mr. Johnston stated the LP sued it’s way to qualified status.