As of December 9, all briefs have been filed in the Sixth Circuit in Erard v Michigan Secretary of State, 14-1873. The Socialist Party challenges Michigan ballot access laws for new parties, arguing that the state discriminates against newly-qualifying parties, relative to old ones. For the 2016 election, for example, Michigan requires a newly-qualifying party to submit 31,565 signatures. But a party that was already on the ballot in November 2014 only needed to poll 16,491 votes for any statewide race to remain ballot-qualified.
This flaw in the Michigan election law has existed ever since 1988, when the legislature passed a bill that doubled the number of signatures needed for a newly-qualifying party, from 1% of the vote cast for the winner for Secretary of State, to 1% of the total gubernatorial vote. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Williams v Rhodes in 1968 that it is unconstitutional for a state to require more support for a newly-qualifying party than it does for an old party, but in the Erard case, the U.S. District Court still upheld the Michigan disparity.
Here is Erard’s reply brief, which is the last brief and which was filed December 9.
Every election is N-E-W and has Z-E-R-O to do with any prior event since the formation of the Universe — except the number of actual voters in the area involved in the prior regular election.
EQUAL nominating petitions for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.
Much too difficult for the armies of lawyer MORONS doing ballot access cases since 1968.
“needed to poll 16,491 votes for any statewide race to remain ballot-qualified”
Does that mean the Natural Law Party lost ballot access?
Last month, the Natural Law Party polled 30,099 for Board of Education; 35,097 for Trustee of the University; and 29,053 for Bd. of Governors of some other state university. So it is still on the ballot. The vote for any statewide office counts.
Also Doug Dern, who heads the Michigan Natural Law Party, polled 182,543 votes for Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, which is a semi-partisan office. Parties nominate candidates for that office but the state won’t print party labels on the ballot for judicial candidates.