U.S. District Court Judge John Koeltl will hear Libertarian Party of New York v New York State Board of Elections, 1:20cv-5820, on Tuesday, December 21. This is the challenge to the 2020 ballot access changes in New York, which moved the statewide independent petition, and the petition for the nominees of unqualified parties, from 15,000 signatures to 45,000. It also changed the definition of a party from one that polled 50,000 votes for Governor, to one that polled 2% for the office at the top of the ballot in the last election.
At the hearing, attorneys for the state will try to persuade the judge to uphold the laws, without benefit of a trial. They will argue that the constitutionality of the new laws are so clear, no more evidence is needed. The state’s briefs in this case so far have many factual errors. Their expert submitted a report on the independent candidate laws of every state, but he neglected to mention that 39 states have separate laws on how new parties may qualify. That is why the state’s expert said that, in California, the petitioning period is only 105 days. He ignored the fact that the procedure for a new party to get on the ballot may take as long as the activists need, even years. For example, the California Libertarian Party took seven years to accumulate enough registered voters to qualify for the ballot, between 1972 and 1979.
The state’s expert also made factual errors even concerning each state’s independent petition period. For example, he said that Oregon has a short window to collect independent candidate signatures. Actually Oregon allows an unlimited amount of time to collect independent signatures. The state’s expert confused the concept of a start date for petitioning, with the earliest date on which an independent petition can be submitted.
Can ANY so-called lawyer or worse judge detect EQUAL in 14-1 Amdt ???
But to call them errors would be to assume it was accidental on their part, which seems unlikely given how hostile both ruling parties are to minor parties and free and fair elections in general. More likely it’s an intentional and conscious attempt to either fool the judge, or give the judge cover if he’s in on it too.
If we’re going to get free and fair multiparty elections in this country, it’ll probably happen in part because of international diplomatic pressure, and for that to happen, more people and national governments need to be made aware of just how rigged and undemocratic this country’s elections really are.
JH–
Rigged ballot access laws.
Rigged primaries.
Rigged gerrymander elections
Rigged hack execs/judics.
Result ???
R—-d regimes– for the main $$$$$$$$ benefit of commie/fascist special interest gangs.
ZERO new in 6,000 plus years.
—–
Equal ballot access.
NOOO primaries.
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Joshua, few people in this country know or care what other countries think about us. And to the extent they do, most are in no mood to let foreigners tell us what to do. Of course, many of them look at it differently when this country’s government tells other countries how to do things. You’ve probably heard of American exceptionalism, I imagine. If by any off chance you haven’t, it’s pretty easy to look it up.
I’m well aware of the concept/myth of American Exceptionalism, Barney. I’m also aware that both ruling party Establishments like to prance around the UN and other international conferences and pretend they support free and fair elections (more recently, Biden’s “Democracy summits”). I’m also aware that one reason why our country’s politicians started caring more about civil rights in the 1960s was precisely because the rest of the world saw the disconnect between our country’s awful record on civil rights and its claim to be a bastion of freedom and democracy-even countries that were allied to ours were starting to have concerns. I’m proposing that those of us in the electoral reform/pro-free and fair elections movement try to do the same again, to make diplomacy and international politics so awkward and difficult for the two ruling parties that they have to give major concessions on electoral policy. The ruling parties, at least the Democrats and the Romney wing of the Republicans, still do not want to lose that perceived moral superiority/legitimacy.
It’s not an apt comparison. For one thing, civil rights in the 1960s was about something that had a direct daily impact on the lives of a large portion of the population. Limiting political choices that a much smaller percentage of the population likes to exercise is much more abstract and doesn’t capture the imagination in the same way. How many third party supporters are going to organize the equivalent of lunch counter and bus boycotts or bloody Sunday marches etc? There’s just no hook for global and national media to take it on as a cause in nearly the same way. Besides which, the media landscape is very different now, with people living largely in partisan media and social media bubbles which only continuously reinforce their views.
For another, consider the roles played by federal judges and justices, federal law enforcement, and pro civil rights politicians. There is no similar niche among those from either major party or region of the country which would serve as a base of support for a third party civil rights movement.
On the world stage, during the 1960s the main competition to the US, the Soviets, found it convenient to highlight racial discrimination in the US. It’s pretty hard to see China under Xi make an effective propaganda point out of opposition parties in the US not being treated well .
Two party politics in the US is increasingly a blood sport, mostly figuratively so far, but starting to cross over into literally. The players and their fans are increasingly in favor of violating global and historical democratic norms against each other, never mind “spoilers.” They each blame third parties for costing them certain elections, which is increasingly unacceptable to them.
Far from getting people embroiled in increasingly bitter two sided negative partisanship to consider being more charitable to third parties, third party supporters should brace for much more restrictive laws to pass and stand up in court. Yes, the trends in recent past decades have mostly been for slow incremental improvements, albeit with many reversals, but those trends are now on the precipice of being swept under by a massive tidal wave of two party trench warfare. This will become increasingly clear to everyone here in the near future.
I like your analysis Murray. I also like the libertarians efforts for the past 50 years in fighting for better ballot access laws for themselves. I win for any third political party is a win for all.
Frankly, I just believe we need to be doing as much as we possibly can within the realm of decency to fight this, even if it seems hopeless at the moment. This issue *does* directly affect people; I’ve seen many folks on social media comment that they feel as if they have “no choice” under the current system but to vote Democrat or Republican. They feel the repression of their rights just as much as we do. They won’t vote third party, but I suspect they might be willing to protest the system which they feel forces them to vote a certain way, if folks would simply make a serious attempt to organize such a protest.
Joshua, there are people that vote third party and would if there were more on the ballot. When I vote, I always vote third party over the two-tyranny parties. I do write in voting too. Maybe, its the rebellious nature in me and/or Richard Winger’s enthusiasm and dedication to the cause of fair and easier ballot access too.
One of the things that I have learned from Richard Winger’s reports on ballot access lawsuits is how often state attorneys either ignore prior precedent, or outright lie about facts in the case. And how often judges will accept this “evidence” in their judgements. Clearly, many state attorneys and federal judges just don’t give a damn about ballot access law.
“I’ve seen many folks on social media comment that they feel as if they have “no choice” under the current system but to vote Democrat or Republican. They feel the repression of their rights just as much as we do. They won’t vote third party, but I suspect they might be willing to protest the system which they feel forces them to vote a certain way, if folks would simply make a serious attempt to organize such a protest.”
I don’t think people are unwilling to organize such a protest. The problem is that everyone has limited resources, including time, and so it just doesn’t get a lot of traction. The same people who say they feel like they have no choice but to vote D or R have a lot of things besides politics to deal with, and to the extent they deal with politics, they have a lot of causes they care about. That applies even to third party activists, but far more so to people who feel like they have to vote for one of the major parties out of negative partisanship. It doesn’t seem very realistic that a lot of people will put much more in the way of time, money, or any other resources into electoral reform that would help third parties – never mind other issues, such as that there is a lot of disagreement even among experts as to what the reforms should be. There are things which seem more pressing competing for those resources at any and all times.
Sorry for the pessimistic assessment. I just don’t see it as an issue that’s going to gain a lot of traction with a lot of people. Even people working on voter suppression issues, who should be the most natural of allies, are often not allies at all when it comes to reforms that would help third parties. But organize away. I hope I am wrong. I don’t think I am.
Murray, China has criticized the electoral college.
Yes, but I don’t think they’ll focus on how third parties are treated in the US too much. They don’t exactly treat opposition parties well themselves.