On September 17, the Green Party and the Constitution Party filed this response brief in the pending ballot access case involving Tennessee. The case is in the Sixth Circuit. The parties had won in the lower court, and Tennessee is appealing. There will be one more brief, by state officials. The chief issues are (1) whether it is constitutional for the state to require over 40,000 signatures for newly-qualifying parties given that it only requires 25 signatures for any independent candidate; (2) whether it is constitutional to provide that the two largest parties always get the top spot on the ballot.
Every election is NEW.
Equal ballot access tests.
Much too difficult for the many MORON lawyers in ballot access cases since 1968.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Demo Rep, what is your opinion about the part of the case over the order of candidates on the ballot?
The fundamental problem is that Tennessee is permitting slogan-bearing private organizations to mediate access to the ballot.
The parties are arguing that if Joe Candidate, independent can get on the ballot with 25 signatures, that any number of Anonymous Party Hack candidates should be able to get on the ballot, and have the party name appear on the ballot.
The simple solution is to let all candidates appear on the ballot who have 25 signatures. All candidates could appear on the ballot without a party name. Political parties would be free to campaign for candidates, just as they were able to do before adoption of the Australian ballot.
Ballot order could be random, or candidates could provide petitions with more signatures to get higher placement.
If no candidate receives a majority, a runoff could be held.
Oddly enough, Tennessee for many decades did not put party labels on general election ballots. Virginia had the same policy in the fairly recent past. But voters prefer party labels to be on the ballot.
Obviously since each election is new, NO body should automatically get the top 1 or 2 or N places on the next ballots.
Again – way too many MORON lawyers to count.
—
Obvious ballot order remedy – half the ballots A to Z, half Z to A.
Also much too difficult for both such MORON lawyers and the even dumber courts — i.e. the SCOTUS robot party hacks.
Do you have evidence that “voters prefer party labels to be on the ballot”?
I’m dubious that there were hordes of angry voters demanding ballot labels at legislative hearings, while legislators vainly argued that it would be harmful.
If the hearing actually happened, it would be folks like John Burton portraying himself as an ordinary citizen.
Yes, I have evidence, from California (a poll) and Virginia. Political scientists have determined repeatedly that party labels on the ballot are the number one determinant of how that voter votes.
If the party labels were not on the ballot, what would be the number one determinant of how a voter votes?
What questions were asked on the California poll?
Based on my unscientific completely anecdotal evidence, when there aren’t party labels on the ballot far fewer people bother to show up to vote.
Whether voters would vote in favor of a version of top-two that eliminated party labels from elections for Congress and state office. The poll showed voters were overwhelmingly opposed. The poll had been commissioned by Steve Peace in 2003 or 2004.
When did the switch to using partisan labels on the ballot in Tennessee and Virginia occur?
How did voters know how to vote for Lisa Murkowski?