On May 20, the Sixth Circuit upheld the aspect of Michigan ballot access laws for new parties that requires newly-qualifying parties to submit approximately twice as many signatures as the number of votes needed for an established party to remain on the ballot. Erard v Michigan Secretary of State, 14-1873.

The decision is only eight pages and does not even mention the two precedents that say states cannot require more signatures for a new party than it requires votes for an old party. Those precedents are the U.S. Supreme Court decision Williams v Rhodes, and a 3-judge U.S. District Court decision from Massachusetts in 1972 called Baird v Davorem.

In Williams v Rhodes, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Ohio was violating the constitution by requiring a 15% (of the last gubernatorial vote) for new parties, but only a 10% vote for an old party to stay on the ballot In Baird v Davorem, the federal court in Massachusetts struck down Massachusetts law that required a 3% petition (of the last gubernatorial vote) for a new party’s nominees, but kept old parties on the ballot if they continued to receive one-tenth of 1% of the vote for Governor.

The Sixth Circuit wouldn’t even grant an oral argument in this case. The decision is per curiam and is signed by Judges R. Guy Cole and Ronald Gilman (Clinton appointees) and Jeffrey Sutton (a Bush Jr. appointee). The case had been filed by a pro se activist from the Socialist Party. Michigan and Kansas are the only two states in which the number of signatures for a new party to get on is greater than the number of votes for an old party to stay on. The Plaintiff, Matt Erard, will ask for reconsideration.