On August 23, the Illinois State Supreme Court issued a one-paragraph decision in Collazo v Illinois State Board of Elections.  This is the case over whether a new Illinois ballot access restriction that was passed this year can go into effect this year.  The lower court had ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state to deprive qualified parties of the ability to nominate legislative candidates after the primary is over, and to make the new restriction effective immediately.

The new law is still in place, but it can’t be applied this year.

Here is the one-paragraph order from the Illinois Supreme Court, explaining that precedential decisions need four votes, but in this case neither side got four votes.  That is because two members of the seven-member court had recused themselves.  The court did not say whether the vote was 3-2 in favor of the plaintiffs, or 3-2 in favor of the defendants.  It doesn’t matter, because when the Supreme Court can’t reach a decision, the lower court ruling stands.

On August 23, U.S. District Court Judge Aleta A. Trauger, a Clinton appointee, upheld the Tennessee petition requirement for parties to get on the ballot.  The law requires signatures equal to 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote, which this year is 43,498 signatures.  Darnell v Hargett, m.d., 3:23cv-1266.

The decision is only twelve pages and says the law was already upheld a few years ago, in a case brought by the Green and Constitution Parties.  Since then, however, the Sixth Circuit has struck down a Michigan petition requirement for statewide independent candidates that was only 30,000 signatures, in Graveline v Benson.  The Michigan requirement was less than 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.  Tennessee and Michigan are both in the Sixth Circuit, so the Graveline decision should have been binding.

Judge Trauger differentiated the Graveline case by saying that the plaintiff in that case had really tried to get on the ballot and had failed, and had therefore strong evidence that the Michigan law was too difficult.  In the current Tennessee Libertarian case, the party did not make an effort to comply with the law.

In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down or remanded cases involving petition requirements even if the plaintiff did not try to petition.  That was true for Gus Hall in California in 1972 in Storer v Breown; Eugene McCarthy in 1976 in Texas in McCarthy v Briscoe; and the Socialist Labor Party in Ohio in 1968 in Williams v Rhodes.  But the judge did not mention any of those cases.

On Friday, August 23, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., spoke in Arizona for almost an hour.  We said he is suspending his campaign but that he will keep his name on the ballot in all but ten battleground states.  He said that if the U.S. had an honest election system, inclusive debates and a better media, he could have won.  He endorsed Donald Trump based on his disagreement with the Democratic ticket on three issues:  health, the Ukraine war, and censorship of social media.  He did say that he has serious disagreements with Donald Trump.

It is clear to those who watched the entire speech that the issue closest to his heart is declining health in the United States.  He painted a bleak picture of the prevalence of chronic disease and contrasted today’s situation with the situation sixty years ago.

He erroneously said that his campaign had collected more signatures than any other in U.S. history.  Actually his campaign did not collect as many signatures as the 1992 Ross Perot campaign, and perhaps several others.  Because Kennedy was nominated by ballot-qualified minor parties in California and Florida, and because presidential ballot access has eased since 1992, he did not face the same ballot access barriers that some others in the past have faced.  On the other hand, no other candidate has been challenged over ballot access procedures as much as Kennedy this year, except for Ralph Nader in 2004.