On January 9, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a short order, saying Rocky De La Fuente’s lawsuit against the law that gives parties complete control over which candidates get on their presidential primary ballot, lacks merit. The order does not give any reasoning, but says a full opinion will follow shortly.
On January 8, U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman, a Carter appointee, ruled from the bench after oral argument in Sweeney v Crigler, e.d., 2:19cv-46. He ruled that Kentucky’s law requiring independent and minor party candidates for state office to file a declaration of candidacy in January of election years violates the U.S. Constitution. The order will be in writing on January 10. This is a Libertarian Party case.
Republican and Democratic candidates must file a declaration of candidacy in January, but that is clearly necessary, because their primary is in May. But minor parties (parties that polled less than 20% for president) nominate by convention, so there is no rational need for a declaration of candidacy for them.
On January 9, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral argument in De La Fuente v Simon, A19-1994. Here is a news story about the hearing. The article doesn’t make it easy to predict how the court will rule. The issue is whether it violates the State Constitution to give a political party complete control over who may appear on its presidential primary ballot.
One can argue that freedom of association for political parties is satisfied by the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled three times that national presidential conventions can refuse to seat delegates if the state party that sent those delegates did not conform to national party rules. Also the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. circuit ruled in LaRouche v Fowler in 1996 that the Democratic Party national convention was free to refuse to seat elected delegates pledged to Lyndon LaRouche.
Joey Kennedy, a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer who lives in Alabama, criticizes Alabama ballot access laws in this column in Alabama Political Reporter. He correctly notes that no statewide minor party or statewide independent petition (except for president, which is easier) has succeeded in Alabama in twenty years. He also points out that the vote test for a party to remain on the ballot is 20%, the highest percentage in the nation.
The Secretary of State of Alabama then wrote a so-called rebuttal, which Alabama Political Reporter published. The Secretary of State makes much of the fact that some independent and minor party petitions for district or county office have succeeded in recent years, but the Secretary of State has nothing to say about statewide petitions.
Kennedy could also have pointed out that Alabama is engaging in a fierce legal fight to retain its law that says only qualified parties can get a free list of the registered voters, whereas unqualified parties who are trying to petition must pay $34,000 for the list. The Alabama Libertarian Party is suing over this law, and the state is requiring that all the plaintiffs undergo time-consuming depositions for a case that should be decided simply on precedent. In 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed a 3-judge U.S. District Court decision from New York, that states that give a free list of registered voters to qualified parties must also give the list to parties that are petitioning. When other states have been sued on this issue, they have always given in, or put up feeble defense, but not Alabama.
The Republican Party of Louisiana has filed a state court lawsuit against the law that requires them to keep a sex balance in their state committee. Louisiana is one of the states in which primary voters choose party committee members. See this story.
