Arkansas House Passes Bill Making Ballot Access for Newly-Qualifying Parties More Difficult

Posted on by February 13, 2019
Reply

On February 13, the Arkansas House passed SB 163, which makes ballot access for newly-qualifying parties more difficult. The old law requires 10,000 signatures, due in early January, to be collected in 90 days. Assuming Governor Asa Hutchinson signs the bill, the new law takes effect immediately, and requires 26,746 valid signatures (3% of the last gubernatorial vote), also due in early January of an election year.

The old law requiring a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, due in January, was struck down in 1996 in Citizens to Establish the Reform Party v Priest, 970 F Supp 690 (e.d.). The legislature in 1997 moved the deadline to July, but didn’t amend the number of signatures. In 2006 the Green Party sued and that same law was struck down again, in Green Party of Arkansas v Daniels, 445 F Supp 2d 1056. And in the 2006 case, the law had been amended to allow five months to collect the signatures, and also had a “cure” period so that if the petition was initially short of signatures, the group was allowed to file a supplemental petition.

The sponsor of SB 163, Senator Trent Garner, thinks that the 1996 and 2006 precedents are no longer good law because in 2011, the Eighth Circuit upheld the Arkansas law on how a party remains on the ballot. But the court in 2011 said that the challenged law did not prevent the Green Party from being on the ballot, and pointed out that it had been on in every election 2006 through 2010.

Here is the roll-call. The vote was 60-20, with 5 abstentions and 15 absent. The “No” votes included thirteen Democrats and seven Republicans. The seven Republicans who voted “no” are Jana Della Rosa, Justin Boyd, Dan Douglas, Richard Womack, Ken Bragg, Stu Smith, and Cameron Cooper. Four of the five abstainers were Republicans; they were Jimmy Gazaway, Justin Gonzales, Spencer Hawks, and Stephen Meeks.

Nevada Bill to Restrict Whom Minor Parties May Nominate

Posted on by February 13, 2019
3

Nevada State Senator James Settelmeyer (R-Minden) has introduced SB 122. It would provide that minor parties could not nominate anyone who wasn’t a registered member of that party by December 31 of the year before the election. However, the bill would not apply to newly-qualifying parties.

Nevada already has a similar restriction for parties that nominate by primary. In Nevada, smaller qualified parties nominate by convention, and they would be affected by this bill.

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that it would be unconstitutional for a state to tell any party that it may not nominate a non-member. 479 US 208, at page 215.

Utah Lawsuit Against Ballot Label Law that Says Independents are “Not Qualified” Moves Ahead

Posted on by February 13, 2019
1

In 2017 the Utah legislature passed a bill saying that independent candidates must have this label on the ballot: “This candidate is not affiliated with, or does not qualify to be listed on the ballot as affiliated with a political party.” In 2018 Marsha Holland was the only independent on the November ballot for any federal or state office in Utah. She filed a lawsuit against the law that required that label, after learning that many voters see that label and think it means she was “not qualified”. The case is Holland v Cox, U.S. District Court, 4:18cv-74.

Originally the lawsuit did not have an attorney associated with it, so it has been stalled, but she has now obtained attorneys and therefore the case can proceed. Here is a link to a news story that shows a picture of the ballot. She was a candidate for the legislature in a district that encompassed several counties in southern Utah. Not all counties obeyed the law. Some counties put the label on, but others did not.

In Cook v Gralike, 531 US 510 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Missouri law that forced some candidates for Congress and legislature to have a ballot label that said they refuse to support a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, said, “The adverse labels handicap candidates at the most crucial stage in the election process – the instant before the vote is cast…the labels surely place their targets at a political disadvantage to unmarked candidates.” Also, in 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that said each candidate’s race must be printed on the ballot. Anderson v Martin, 375 US 399.