On December 16, the Eleventh Circuit issued a five-page “per curiam” decision in Stein v Chapman, 13-15556, the lawsuit that challenges Alabama’s March petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties in presidential election years. The decision says that because the plaintiffs Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties presented “no” evidence, there is no reason to disturb the filing deadline.

Actually, the plaintiffs presented a great deal of evidence, but it was almost entirely excluded at the U.S. District Court stage because of a legal technicality involving filing a notice of the plaintiffs’ list of witnesses. But even without that problem, there is evidence in the case inside the many depositions that the state of Alabama conducted.

Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made that petition deadlines as early as March are unconstitutional on their face, and therefore evidence is not needed. The decision says, “Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has articulated a clear standard of review for challenges to ballot-access restrictions in a presidential election”, but that is not true, because the U.S. Supreme Court articulated a balancing test in Anderson v Celebrezze in 1983, when it struck down Ohio’s March petition deadline for independent presidential candidates. The Eleventh Circuit opinion quotes the U.S. Supreme Court sentence in Anderson v Celebrezze that “the State has a less important interest in regulating Presidential elections than statewide or local elections”, but having quoted that sentence, the panel ends the discussion, except to return to the point that plaintiffs didn’t present evidence.

If you use the link to read the Eleventh Circuit opinion, you may notice that the front page says the decision is 29 pages, but actually the decision itself is only five pages; the other 24 pages is an attachment.