On April 6, U.S. District Court Judge David Nuffer upheld Utah’s severe petition requirements for candidates trying to get on a primary ballot. His 42-page opinion says it doesn’t matter how difficult the requirements are, because they are not mandatory. Candidates are also free to get on a primary ballot if they have substantial support at a party caucus.
The only authority Judge Nuffer cited for his conclusion is a decision of the Second Circuit, upholding Connecticut’s procedures for presidential candidates to get on presidential primary ballot. Connecticut law said candidates discussed in the news media should be on the ballot automatically, and others needed a petition. The Second Circuit agreed that the “discussed in the media” law is vague, but said it doesn’t matter, because candidates not discussed in the media are free to get on the primary ballot with a petition.
Contradicting that is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1969, Moore v Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814. That opinion, on page 818, says, “All procedures used by a State as an integral part of the election process must past muster against the charges of discrimination or of abridgment of the right to vote.” Judge Nuffer did not mention Moore v Ogilvie.
The primary petition requirements in Utah are so onerous, in some cases it would be impossible for more than one Republican to get on the primary ballot by petition, because the law does not let voters sign for more than a single candidate for the same office. In a few legislative districts, the petition requires signatures from over half the eligible signers, so obviously it would be impossible in such a district for two candidates to get on the ballot by petition.
How many States need to be liberated by a New Age Union Army/Navy from the EVIL monarchs and oligarchs who control such States ???
i.e. who are the New Age Gens. Washington, Grant, Sherman, Pershing, Eisenhower, MacArthur, etc. ???
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO robot party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.
Ballot access ONLY via EQUAL nominating petitions.
Looks like the judge is relying on _LaRouche v Kezar_, 990 F2d 36 (2nd Cir, 1993) to say that — even if Connecticut’s petition procedures are unconstitutional standing alone (and he admits that they probably are) — the convention path is okay, and that saves the overall scheme. Which sounds like it goes against your _Moore v Ogilvie_.
There is one footnote in _LaRouche v Kezar_ — and it’s interesting: “Of course, if a ballot qualification statute were wholly irrational–a coin-flip test, for example–it would not be saved by the presence of additional valid-access methods. However, the media recognition test easily survives this minimal scrutiny because it clearly has some rational relationship to the seriousness of particular candidacies[.]” Folks who believe media aren’t impartial in their coverage might have something to say about this. . . .