Fordham Law Review, December 2016 issue, has kindly published my article, “Does the Constitution Provide More Ballot Access Protection for Presidential Elections than for U.S. House Elections?” Here is a pdf of the article. I hope it focuses attention on the dismal state of ballot access laws in the United States for third parties and independents in U.S. House elections.

In Georgia, no one has successfully completed the independent or minor party petition to get on the ballot for U.S. House since 1964. In North Carolina and South Carolina, no independent candidate for U.S. House has ever appeared on a government-printed ballot. North Carolina has had government-printed ballots since 1901, and South Carolina since 1950.

The Eleventh Circuit will hear Green Party of Georgia v Kemp, 16-11689, in Atlanta, on Thursday, January 26, 2017. This is the case in which the U.S. District Court invalidated Georgia’s petition requirement, 1% of the number of registered voters, for president. The U.S. District Court said there was no reason for the state to require approximately 50,000 signatures, especially given the fact that no one had successfully petitioned for president in Georgia since 2000. The U.S. District Court then set the requirement at 7,500 until the legislature changes it.

Even with a requirement of 7,500 signatures in place, no presidential petition succeeded in Georgia in 2016. Jill Stein and Rocky De La Fuente both submitted more signatures than the 7,500 requirement, but the state said neither petition had enough valid signatures. Therefore it will be difficult for Georgia to argue to the Eleventh Circuit that the ballot will be too crowded if the state loses the case.

The state has also consistently argued that the plaintiff political parties lack a modicum of support. But given that Jill Stein polled at least 1,400,000 votes in the nation last month, it will be difficult for the state to argue that the Green Party lacks a modicum of support.

Politico has this story about efforts to persuade presidential electors to vote for someone other than the winner of the popular vote in their own state. There is not a great deal of new news in the story, except for the point that a team of attorneys will defend any such electors if their state fines them for voting differently than expected. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.