Georgia’s ballot access laws, for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives who are not Democrats or Republicans, are so stringent, no one has used them in a regularly-scheduled election since 1964. The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether that law violates the U.S. Constitution. The case is Coffield v Kemp, and the Court will consider whether to hear it at its January 14, 2011 conference.

Georgia has not filed an opposition brief, and the Court has not asked Georgia to file such a brief. That is a clue that the U.S. Supreme Court probably won’t hear the case. If the Court overlooks this case, that will represent a black mark for the United States. When George Wallace sued Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that no minor party or independent candidate had qualified in Ohio for the previous 20 years, and struck down the Ohio ballot access laws. But the historical record for U.S. House elections in Georgia is far worse, because it has been 46 years since anyone has been able to qualify in Georgia. By contrast, even when Ohio’s ballot access laws were at their worst, between 1951 and 1968, three independent candidates for the U.S. House qualified in Ohio.

Recently, a member of the international organization that examines election policies in procedures in many countries of the world commented that the Georgia ballot access record is “shocking.” He promised to alert members of the organization about the Georgia record.

The group that monitors elections for the Helsinki Accords has issued a report on the 2010 election in the United States. See it here. It includes 27 pages of text. International human rights observers tend to notice deficiencies in U.S. ballot access laws during presidential election years, but they tend to miss it in mid-term years. The report says nothing about ballot access laws. However, it criticizes the U.S. for failing to give voting representatives in Congress to citizens who live in the District of Columbia and the overseas possessions. It also criticizes the U.S. for disenfranchising felons in almost all states, and ex-felons in many states. And, it criticizes the many instancees when minor party and independent candidates were excluded from general election debates. Thanks to law professor Jurij Toplak of Slovenia for the link.