U.S. District Court Upholds Ohio Ballot Access Law on Some Points; Other Issues Still Unresolved

On March 16, a U.S. District Court upheld Ohio’s ballot access law for newly-qualifying parties relative to the claims made by the Ohio Green Party.  The law was passed in 2013 and did not change the 1% (of the last vote cast) petition to get on the ballot, except that it improved the deadline, and added a distribution requirement, and required additional small petitions for convention nominees.  The 2013 law provides that newly-qualifying parties nominate by convention instead of by primary.  Here is the opinion.

Currently the Green Party is the only ballot-qualified party in Ohio other than the Democratic and Republican Parties.  Any other parties will need 30,560 signatures by July 6, 2016.

This decision doesn’t discuss the Libertarian Party’s main argument, which is that the new law violates the Ohio State Constitution.  Normally federal courts can’t decide whether a state law violates a state constitutional provision, but there are exceptions.  The Ohio State Constitution appears to mandate that all parties nominate by primary, and yet the new law says new parties nominate by convention.  A decision addressing the Libertarian Party’s points is likely soon.


Comments

U.S. District Court Upholds Ohio Ballot Access Law on Some Points; Other Issues Still Unresolved — 6 Comments

  1. What century will 3rd parties and independents find a ballot access lawyer with ANY brain cells ???

    Every election is NEW.
    Separate is NOT equal. — Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — a mere 61 years ago.
    Thus – EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.

    Difficult ONLY for MORON lawyers and even worse MORON judges.

  2. That is not a fair criticism. Since the dawn of government-printed ballots in the United States, state election laws were passed saying that parties that polled a certain share of the vote in the last election should be on the ballot in the next election automatically. That is not the standard in most democratic countries. Most democratic countries agree with Demo Rep. But the United States has a different tradition, and it is impossible for any attorney to ignore it. There is no precedent in U.S. courts to support the philosophical point made by Demo Rep.

  3. Not a philosophical point.

    A mere legal point by noting political reality since 1776 and the Equal protection clause since 1868.

    What happened to the Whig Party ??? –i.e. even *big* parties have come and gone.

    Would the Republican Party candidates have been on the ballots in 1854 if *modern* so called tradition stuff had been in force in 1854 ???

    LOTS of MORON know it all lawyers doing the same old DEFECTIVE rotted arguments in cases since 1968 — Williams v. Rhodes in SCOTUS.

  4. Obviously you need to be the one litigating these cases, Demo Rep. I suspect that attacking your lawyers as MORONs is not a good way to get anywhere. I’m pretty familiar with litigation in this area, as is your host Richard. Trust us, the lawyers are making the arguments you suggest, and there have been some pretty good lawyers involved. The problem is, as Richard notes, that U.S. Courts simply have not been much help. But I’m sure you’ve got the ticket.

  5. When the MORON lawyers screwed up Williams v. Rhodes in 1968 they caused ALL later ballot access cases to get screwed up.

    The HACK lower courts just follow the JUNK in SCOTUS

    – nothing is *severe*, all the party hack stuff enacted by the gerrymander oligarchs is *reasonable*.

    1968-2015 — a mere 47 years of MORON lawyers and hack courts at work in ballot access cases. It shows.

    ONLY EQUAL nominating petitions.
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  6. HB 193 does not say that new parties nominate by convention. The 3 to 5-member committee designated on the petition as the party formation committee represents the party. This committee certifies the party candidates for the initial election, among those who individually petition. How they make their decision as to which candidates to certify in an internal matter.

    If you assume that Ohio constitution requires partisan candidates to be nominated by primary, then when you will read article Article V §7 as requiring a primary. But it doesn’t actually say that. It states that nominations will be primary _or_ petition, and then specifies certain instances when nomination must be done by petition. For other nominations, the method is established by statute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.