On September 17, the Montana Secretary of State filed this brief in the ballot access case Montana Green Party v Stapleton, 6:18cv-87. This is the case that challenges the March petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties, and the distribution requirement that requires unequal numbers of signatures from at least 34 state house districts. The case was filed in 2018 and is still in U.S. District Court.
Montana’s distribution requirement is unique in history. It is the only distribution requirement that is based on units of equal population (state house districts), yet which requires varying numbers of signatures from each district. In some districts as few as 55 signatures are needed; in others, as many as 150. The state’s brief does not really grapple with why the number of signatures required should vary at all, much less by a ratio of 1:3.
Perhaps the districts with the higher signature requirements are the most inaccessible, requiring the petitioners to work harder to get the necessary number of signatures.
ALWAYS UNEQUAL numbers of REAL / HUMAN Electors in the various gerrymander districts.
See Mich case below this item.
—
PR — esp in LOOOOOW pop areas
MT like Mich is 1 of 18 States with Voter petits for State Const Amdts
Are Voter petits boobs?
Only boobs are some of the MORON juveniles on this list with their flippant wiseASS MORON comments —
one more EVIL result of the flippant Prezs since 1993 Clinton — 27 plus years and counting.
The distribution requirement seems silly to me. I cannot see a rational basis for it. But, apparently, it is commonplace (if you read the State’s brief).
The state brief mistates the Missouri law at issue in Libertarian Party v. Bond.
It claims that the Missouri district requirement was based on the successful candidate for governor. In fact the requirement in Missouri was based on the total gubernatorial vote (Missouri subsequently changed their law, eliminating the district requirement.) Missouri successfully argued that basing the district requirement on votes cast for governor more closely reflected the number of available petition signers (the active electorate).
But in Montana the district requirement is based on the winning gubernatorial candidate. In this case, the gubernatorial election was an outlier in the sense that the Democrat, Steve Bullock, won. If the district requirements had been based on the SOS race where the Montana defendant Cory Stapleton easily won, the Green Party would have qualified. If we assume that Democratic leaning voters would be more amenable to signing a Green petition, then there is an equal protection violation in making it harder for left-leaning parties to qualify.
This is totally arbitrary and capricious.
The electorate among the 100 House districts varies widely, by a factor of 2.5 to one (2882 to 7248). This in of itself an equal protection violation, one that hypocritical liberal judges and lawyers are unwilling to recognize.
Because of the wide variance in Democratic support, the district requirement as a share of the total gubernatorial vote varies from 1.13% to 3.84%. The mean is 2.39%, but the standard deviation is 0.52%. As one would expect, 34 districts are outside one standard deviation.
This is equivalent to saying that an average adult male is 5’11” but 16% are over 7’2″ and 18% are less than 4’8″. There is such a wide variation that the average no longer adequately describes the overall population.
Montana’s law does not even rise to the level of arbitrary and capricious. It is stupid and inane.
Montana should eliminate partisan nomination and the need for party qualification.