On December 18, the Virginia Libertarian Party, and its candidate for U.S. Senate in 2014, Rob Sarvis, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Sarvis v Alcorn. A case number hasn’t been assigned yet. The issue is the Virginia law that says the parties that polled at least 10% in one of the last two elections are automatically at the top of the ballot.
Virginia law, ironically, allows for a random method to determine whether the Republican Party or the Democratic Party are listed first, within that top tier. So the law itself recognizes the importance of being listed first on the ballot, and uses an objective standard to decide which major party gets that status.
The U.S. District Court, and the Fourth Circuit, in their opinions in this case, acknowledged that it is advantageous to be listed first on the ballot. But they said Virginia has an interest in bolstering the two largest parties against their competitors.
The Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE) helped pay for the cert petition printing. Thank all of you who have contributed to COFOE recently. Generally the donors are individuals who subscribe to the print edition of Ballot Access News. Individual dues for COFOE membership are $30, and members receive a free copy of Ballot Access News, print edition.
A copy of the cert petition will be posted here soon.
Gee – are ALL of the HACK judges involved connected with the HACK Donkey/Elephant gangster parties ???
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
That’s interesting. I just read that in a taxi licensing verdict that the Institute for Justice recently, the judge said that the right to a monopoly is not granted by the Constitution. First thing I thought was, “That should apply to duopolies and political parties, too.”
It’s important to challenge the logic of the lower court’s ruling; the outrageous notion that the state has a valid interest in favoring the two largest parties and promoting their dominance and that disadvantaging other parties can be justified on that basis alone.
It’s interesting, though, that many (most?) other states place the parties on the ballot in the order of their vote totals at the last election, usually for Governor or President. I see no reason why Virginia couldn’t do that, have the same substantive effect of nearly-always putting the Ds and Rs 1st and 2nd, but avoid the disparate and unequal treatment being objected to here. Then each party is being treated the same: ranked in order of its respective vote totals.
Or they could just do it randomly by picking party names out of a hat, but that would be way too sensible and simple for most state legislators.
In many countries the order is based on the surname of the candidate and NOT the party they belong to e.g. The UK.
In Australia they have a two step process to determine the order.
In the order in which nomination papers are received the candidate / agent picks a ball with a number in it. This then determines the order in which they pick a second ball. And it is the result of this step that determines the order on the Ballot paper.
In Tasmania for State elections the candidate order is randomised on each ballot paper. So one person will get a paper with candidates in the order 1,2,3,4 and the next person could get one with the order 4,1,3,2 etc.
Half the precincts A to Z.
Other half the precincts Z to A.
Much too difficult for the MORON HACK judges involved ???