On May 4, the 7th circuit issued this 3-page opinion in Stone v Neal, 11-1085. This case challenges the requirement that all candidates for non-partisan citywide office in Chicago need 12,500 valid signatures to get on the ballot.

The Court said there is nothing for it to do in this case at this time, because the election is over, and therefore the appeal of the District Court’s order, denying injunctive relief, is moot. The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for a decision on the constitutionality of the requirement. The tone of the 7th circuit’s order is ever so slightly favorable to the candidates who brought the lawsuit. The first paragraph highlights that Chicago’s ballot access requirements seem sharply at variance with the ballot access laws of other large U.S. cities.

On April 12, Ohio Senator Mark Wagoner introduced SB 148, with the backing of the Secretary of State. It is an omnibus election law bill, and includes a provision for a new procedure for minor parties to get on the ballot. The old procedure was held unconstitutional in 2006.

The bill provides that a petition to qualify a new or previously unqualified party needs signatures equal in number to one-half of 1% of the last vote cast. If this bill had been in effect in 2010, it would have required 28,542 valid signatures. If it were in effect in 2012, it would require 19,263 valid signatures. The petition would be due 100 days before the primary. If it were in effect in 2012, the petition deadline would be November 26, 2011 (the next Ohio statewide primary is March 6, 2012).

The bill also has a provision for a party that does not wish to run anyone for any partisan office except President. That petition would also require one-half of 1% of the last vote cast, but it would not be due until 80 days before the general election, which would be August 18, 2010.

It is not clear if the Secretary of State believes that this bill, if signed into law, could be implemented for 2012. If it were signed into law, for example, in July 2011, it would give parties only four months to comply with the law. Some courts have ruled in the past that when a new petition hurdle is implemented during the middle of the petitioning season, due process requires that the number of signatures be reduced proportionately to the time not available.

It is likely that the new petition deadline (for parties that wish to have candidates for all office, not just president) would still be unconstitutional. Petition deadlines for new parties that are earlier than the primary, and earlier than May, have always been declared unconstitutional, regardless of how few signatures are required. Even states that had very low signature requirements could not win in court against petition deadlines in April or earlier. Examples are Alaska, Kentucky, Maine, and New Jersey, all of which required 5,000 or fewer signatures for new parties, or new party nominees, but still had their early deadlines thrown out.