On December 4, the Harvard Law Record carried this short article by Theresa Amato about the need for ballot access reform. Amato is the author of the recently-published Grand Illusion, The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny. She was also Ralph Nader’s campaign manager in 2000 and 2004.

The article advocates that a federal standard for ballot access in federal elections be passed. Bills to establish such a standard have been introduced in nine sessions of Congress, although no such bill is pending in the current session of Congress. The lead authors have been, first John Conyers, then Tim Penny, and most recently Ron Paul.

The article notes that the very same publication, the Harvard Law Record, carried a somewhat similar article by Ralph Nader in 1958. Thanks to D. Eris of Politeaparty.blogspot.com for the link. Anyone reads the article carefully may be surprised that Amato says Nader announced his presidential candidacy in three elections, which she lists as 2000, 2004, and 2008. She does not include 1996 because, even though Nader was the presidential candidate of the Green Party in 1996, he did not raise or spend as much as $5,000, so under the Federal Election Commission’s definition of “candidate”, for FEC purposes he was not a candidate in 1996. Of course most people wouldn’t use the FEC’s constrained definition and would say he was a candidate in 1996; he placed fourth, even though he was only on the ballot in 23 states in 1996.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, a Clinton appointee, will hear arguments in Arizona Green Party v Bennett on January 11, 2010, at 11:30 a.m., in Phoenix. The party is asking for a temporary restraining order to let it use out-of-state residents to help circulate its petition for party status. The party also asks for more time to complete the petition. The statutory deadline was moved from March 2010 to February 2010 by a bill that passed earlier this year. There are precedents that say that when a state moves a deadline to an earlier point, it cannot implement that earlier deadline in the middle of petitioning season, but should make the new deadline effective for the next election.

On November 16, U.S. District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes ruled against the state of Arkansas, in the lawsuit over whether a state can remove a party from the ballot just because it did poorly in the presidential race, even though it did better in other races. Green Party of Arkansas v Daniels, 4:09-cv-695.

Attorneys for Arkansas had argued that ballot access precedents make it clear that the law is constitutional, and therefore the case should be dismissed without a trial. But the judge cleared the way for a trial. The case was filed earlier this year by the Arkansas Green Party. It polled 20.47% for U.S. Senate in 2008, and elected a state legislator, but only got .32% for President in 2008. The ruling is seven pages. The case now proceeds to the evidence-gathering stage.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on how tough state laws can be, when they write an election law to determine whether a party should remain on the ballot. Arkansas requires a party to poll 3% for President in a presidential election year; if it doesn’t, it goes off the ballot.