The Sixth Circuit has expedited Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, 16-3537. The Libertarian brief is due June 22. The state’s response is due July 8 and the Libertarian reply is due July 15.
2
On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Tuaua v United States, 15-981. The issue was this language in the 14th amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” American Samoans are not citizens of the U.S., but in this case some Samoans argued that the Constitution requires that they be considered citizens. The lower court had ruled against the Samoans. The Samoans had hired noted U.S. Supreme Court practitioner Ted Olson to handle their case in the U.S. Supreme Court, but to no avail.
Ballot Access News
May 1, 2016 – Volume 31, Number 12
| This issue was printed on white paper. |
Table of Contents
- OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE PASSES BILL TO EASE VOTE TEST FOR PARTY RETENTION FROM 10% to 2.5%
- VERMONT EASES DEADLINE
- OKLAHOMA TAKES ELECTORS OFF BALLOT
- THREE PENNSYLVANIA PARTIES ASK JUDGE TO PUT THEM ON BALLOT
- PENNSYLVANIA WIN
- JUDGE UPHOLDS DISCRIMINATORY CALIFORNIA BALLOT LABELS
- MAINE COURT DENIES LIBERTARIANS
- OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS
- CONSTITUTION PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CONVENTION VOTE
- 2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
- PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES WHO GOT ON BALLOTS IN MARCH & APRIL
- JILL STEIN AWARDED PRIMARY SEASON MATCHING FUNDS
- SOCIALIST EQUALITY TICKET
- ANTI-TRUMP REPUBLICANS HOPE TO RECRUIT GENERAL MATTIS TO RUN AS INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE
- LIBERTARIAN WINS NON-PARTISAN OFFICE IN SOUTH DAKOTA
- CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE QUALFIES IN TWO STATES
- AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY GETS MUCH PUBLICITY
- SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL
Rocky De La Fuente, who is an independent presidential candidate, has filed lawsuits against several state ballot access laws that require a very large number of signatures.
He sued California on May 11, 2016. That case is De La Fuente v Padilla, c.d., 2:16cv-3242. California requires 178,039 signatures for an independent presidential candidate. The procedure has not been used for any statewide office since 1992, when Ross Perot qualified in California as an independent. According to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions Storer v Brown and Mandel v Bradley, courts should evaluate petition requirements for independent candidates by checking the history of how many times they have been used. No lawsuit has previously been filed by any independent presidential candidate against the California requirement, although lawsuits were filed in the 1970’s by an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, Nancy Jewell Cross.
De La Fuente also sued Florida, on March 29. Florida requires 119,316 signatures for an independent presidential candidate. No one has qualified as an independent candidate for any statewide office in Florida since 1992, when Perot qualified. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1974 in Danciu v Glisson that it is unconstitutional for Florida to require more signatures for an independent candidate than for a new party. Florida has been ignoring this decision ever since 1999, when it eliminated all mandatory ballot access petitions for new parties, and non-presidential independent candidates, but retained a very tough requirement for independent presidential candidates.
On the evening of June 9, President Obama was on the Tonight Show, hosted by Jimmy Fallon. He said, “I am worried about the Republican Party. Democracy works, this country works, when you have two parties that are serious and try to solve problems…at the end of the day, you want a healthy two-party system. You want the Republican nominee to be somebody who could do the job if he wins.”
“Two-party system” is an ambiguous term. When it was first coined, in 1906, to describe the British party system, it means a system in which two parties are much stronger than the others, but one in which there more than two parties in the national legislature. Over the years, in the United States, “two-party system” has come to mean a system in which the government actively discourages voters from participating in any but the two largest parties.
Whichever definition the President was using, he ought to reconsider. If “two-party system” means a system in which only two parties have members in the national legislature, then the United States and Nigeria are the only “two-party systems” in the world, among the 50 most populous countries. It is difficult to argue that the party system in United States is the best system. One can look at Canada, which has five parties in the national legislature; or Great Britain, which has twelve parties in the national legislature, and easily conclude that Canada and Great Britain have better systems. Whenever lists are made of the ten best countries, based on various objective criteria, the United States never appears on that list, and all the countries on that list have multi-party systems, even if in some of them, two parties are much bigger than all the others.