The North Carolina ballot access trial is now over. It was conducted on May 5-6, with closing arguments on May 7. During the course of the trial, the plaintiffs (Libertarian and Green Parties) presented 8 witnesses. The state did not present any witnesses who testified in court, although the state did present affidavits from election officials. The state rests its defense of the existing ballot access laws almost solely on the point that (1) the laws had already been upheld in federal court in 1994; (2) North Carolina elects ten statewide state offices in presidential election years, and if there are several minor parties on the ballot, and they run candidates for all these statewide state offices, that will create a ballot that is cumbersome. Some North Carolina counties use optical-scan ballots, and if there are too many offices and too many candidates in the general election, that will take more than a single ballot card for each voter. Other North Carolina counties use touch-screen machines.
An opinion will probably come within the next three weeks. Witnesses for the plaintiffs were two political scientists, Michael Munger and Steven Greene; two Libertarian Party leaders, Barbara Howe and Sean Haugh; three Green Party leaders, Elena Everett, Hart Matthews, and W. Gray Newman; and Richard Winger.
Richard Who? (Just kidding.)
Could you tell by the questioning which way the judges were leaning? I am curious as to what type of questions you were asked.
The judge seemed very interested in the testimony. But he asked very few questions.
What person brought up the basic point that — SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL — Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 ?
I.E. — one more screwed up ballot access case — one of very MANY since 1968 ???
I got this from a Green who attended the trial and think it is an interesting idea:
“There was a very interesting question from Judge Hobgood when the defense was using public financing of elections as an example, where the candidate had to raise a certain amount of money before qualifying — the judge asked
if it might not be possible to similarly fund ballot access drives by a $1 check box on the income tax form!”
“His testimony was unbelievably good.” That was the opinion of LPNC’s attorney, Ken Soo, after Richard Winger’s 2½ hours on the stand, Tuesday. It was good for our side because he demostrated vividly from history that there was no rational basis for the State’s horrid restrictions.
Thanks again, Richard.
Howdy Kai! Yup, Jan Martell and I are already hatching our grand plan for public financing of petition signatures. Hilarious stuff.