Among the most irrational ballot access laws are the laws of Arizona, Florida, Maryland, New Mexico, and Texas, which require independent presidential candidates to submit far more signatures than those states require for newly-qualifying parties.

The consistent excuse for severe ballot access laws is that without them, the ballot would be too crowded. But when a state requires far more signatures for a single independent candidate, who will only occupy one line on a ballot, than for a entire new party (which could put a nominee on the ballot for all the partisan offices, thus impacting the ballot much more), the law isn’t even rational.

Florida does not require a newly-qualifying party to submit any signatures at all, but for 2016 it requires an independent presidential candidate to submit 119,316 signatures. Only independent presidential candidates have a mandatory petition in Florida; independent candidates for other office need no petition. No one has yet challenged Florida’s discriminatory ballot access for independent presidential candidates. Instead, independent presidential candidates have simply formed a party to avoid the problem. For instance, Ralph Nader in 2008 helped create the Ecology Party, a party that only existed in Florida. That party then nominated Nader for president.

Arizona for 2016 requires 20,049 valid signatures for a newly-qualifying party, but will require approximately 36,000 or more signatures for an independent candidate for president and any other statewide office. The exact requirement can’t be known until early 2016, but is 3% of the number of registered voters who are not registered in a qualified political party. No independent candidate has ever sued Arizona over this law.

Maryland for 2016 requires a newly-qualifying party to submit 10,000 signatures, but an independent presidential candidate, and any other statewide independent, needs approximately 38,000 signatures. The exact requirement won’t be known until early in 2016, but will be 1% of the number of registered voters.

Texas in 2016 requires a newly-qualifying party to submit 47,086 signatures, but a presidential independent needs 79,939 signatures.

Several organizations exist to promote to interests of independent voters and, to some extent, the interests of independent candidates. Some of these organizations have substantial networks of supporters and considerable financial resources. Anyone who reads this blog post, and who is associated with such organizations, should consider either (1) bringing these unconstitutional laws to the attention of state legislators; (2) finding independent candidate-plaintiffs who want to run in 2016 who will bring lawsuits. Already, a potential independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland is considering bring a lawsuit, although an attorney must still be found.

The Ninth Circuit will hear Arizona Libertarian Party v Bennett, 13-16254, on January 29, 2015. This is the case over Arizona voter registration forms. A few years ago the legislature passed a law saying the two largest parties should be listed with their own checkbox on the voter registration form. But if a voter wants to register into any other party, qualified or not, the voter must write that choice in on a blank line that is only nine-tenths of one inch long.

The U.S. District Court had ruled that this law is not discriminatory and imposes only a “slight” burden on the other ballot-qualified parties. This conclusion ignores the fact that Arizona parties can remain ballot-qualified if they keep their registration up to two-thirds of 1%, which is about 20,000 members. Obviously parties will have more registered members if they are listed on the voter registration form with their own checkbox. The Green Party has never met the registration threshold so it must do a difficult petition drive every four years. The Libertarian and Green Parties are co-plaintiffs.

On November 18, the Florida legislature determined that the November 4 election for State House district 64 was not legal. As a result, a special election is needed. See this story.

Florida law says that when all the candidates for a particular partisan office are from the same party, then the primary for that particular office is open to all voters. In the case of District 64, there was a dispute over whether a write-in candidate who filed for the race was a valid candidate. If he was a valid candidate, then the primary should have been open only to Republican voters. If the write-in candidate was not a valid candidate, then the primary should have been open to all voters.

The write-in candidate did not live in the district. A trial court ruled that he was not a valid candidate, and an open primary was held. Before the primary was held, but after the ballots had been printed, the state court of appeals ruled that the write-in candidate was a valid candidate. The state court of appeals said the state constitution does not permit the state to disallow a write-in candidate on the basis that he or she doesn’t live in the district, because candidates whose names are on the ballot do not need to meet that residency requirement, and there is no basis to discriminate against write-in candidates.

Because the state court of appeals decision came too late, the “wrong type of primary” was held, and now the legislature has determined that the process was therefore flawed and of no effect. In the meantime, the State Supreme Court will be deciding whether the State Court of Appeals was correct.