U.S. Supreme Court Asks Arizona to Respond to Libertarian Party Ballot Access Cert Petition

Posted on by January 30, 2020
2

On January 30, the U.S. Supreme Court asked Arizona to respond to the cert petition filed by the Arizona Libertarian Party. This is the case over the state’s severe requirements for a members of a small ballot-qualified party to get on their own party’s primary ballot. The Arizona law is especially senseless and discriminatory, because it only applies to parties that have been ballot-qualified for more than four years. That is why, in 2016 and 2018, the Green Party (which had not been continuously ballot-qualified before 2016) was able to easily nominate candidates, whereas the Libertarian Party, which has more voter support as shown by voter registration records, could not.

The law let Greens win a Green Party nomination with just a single write-in vote in the Green Party’s primary in both 2016 and 2018, but required Libertarian write-in candidates to win thousands of write-ins, if they were running for statewide office.

This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the state for a response, in a ballot access case involving independent or minor party candidates, since 2011, when the Court asked Hawaii to respond to Nader v Nago. When the Court asks for a state response, that shows it is somewhat interested in the case. In the case of Nader v Nago, though, ultimately the Court did not hear the case.

The state response is due March 2. That means that organizations that wish to file an amicus curiae brief also have until March 2 to file something.

Fourth Circuit Hears Libertarian Ballot Access Case

Posted on by January 30, 2020
4

On January 29, the Fourth Circuit heard Johnston v Lamone, 19-1783. This is the Maryland Libertarian case, in which the party argues that because it has approximately 22,000 registered members, there is no point in requiring it collect 10,000 signatures to get back on the ballot. Another issue in the case is the Maryland law that won’t count signatures if the middle initial is missing from the petition even though it is on the voter registration form. Listen to the 39 minute argument using this link.

The three judges are G. Steven Agee, Albert Diaz, and Pamela Harris. The judges seemed inclined to rule against the party on the main issue. They have a strong feeling that a voter registration into a party is not meaningful, especially if the voter registered into the party some time ago. Judge Harris suggested an example of a college student at a frat party having registered Libertarian at a young age, and then forgetting that he or she made that choice. The attorney for the Libertarian Party tried to explain that voters do have an interest in updating their party affiliation, because they know, or should know, that they can’t vote in the upcoming presidential primaries if they are still registered into a minor party. But that seemed to fall on deaf ears. The petition must be completed within a two-year period, and the judges all seemed to feel that a petition signature is more meaningful than a registration, because it is recent. The attorney for the Libertarian Party tried to explain that a signature on a petition means very little, and that probably the vast majority of people who sign petitions for a party don’t really agree with it, but they are signing because of a belief that every party that is making a serious attempt deserves to be on the ballot.

The judges did question the state (at the 21:54 mark) about the policy that a petition signature is invalid if the middle initial is missing, but the state argued that issue is not now ripe, and wouldn’t be ripe until after a petition is submitted and rejected.

Georgia Bill to Change Nominations Process for Some U.S. Senate Special Elections

Posted on by January 29, 2020
2

On January 28, the Georgia House Governmental Affairs Committee passed HB 757 by a vote of 8-2. It changes the rules for some U.S. Senate special elections. Currently special elections in Georgia have no party nominees, although party labels appear on the ballot. Every candidate gets on the ballot by paying a filing fee. If no one gets 50%, there is a runoff.

The bill would change that for U.S. Senate special elections that are simultaneous with a regularly-scheduled general election. There will be a U.S. Senate special election in Georgia in 2020, along with a regular election for the state’s other Senate seat. The reason there will be a special election is that U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, who had been re-elected in 2016, quit at the end of 2019. Normally his seat would not have been up until 2022, but because the seat was filled by appointment in early 2020, there must be a special election in November 2020.

The appointed incumbent is Senator Kelly Loeffler, and she expects to run for re-election in this year’s special election. She was appointed by Governor Brian Kemp and is considered a moderate Republican. Most observers believe that she has a better chance for re-election in November 2020 under the current rules, in which there would be several other major party members running, but no party nominees.

The bill would change the special election to provide that there would be a primary for that seat on May 19, 2020, and then the special election in November 2020 would have party nominees. All six of the bill’s co-sponsors are Republican legislators who seem to prefer that Senator Loeffler be defeated for the Republican nomination. The Governor has said that if the bill reaches his desk, he will veto it, because he supports Loeffler. But it is possible his veto will be overridden. Democrats in the legislature probably prefer that the special election be the kind of election with one Republican running against one Democrat (and probably one Libertarian).