On December 7, Washington state filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Doe v Reed, 09-559, asking the Court not to hear the case. The issue is whether the names and addresses of people who sign petitions should be made public. The Court will consider whether to hear the case at its conference on January 8, 2010.

The state’s brief says that the state interest in releasing the names and addresses is to let people review the work of the Secretary of State. In other words, if the Secretary of State says the petition has enough valid signatures, opponents of the petition might wish to contest the Secretary of State’s finding.

The brief also says that the signatures aren’t really private anyway, since if they are circulated in public (for instance, on the street) anyway can see who signed the sheet that is on display.

Finally, the brief says that if the petition’s opponents can’t learn who signed, that wouldn’t be fair, because the proponents of the petition are permitted to see who signed. The brief mentions that in California, the names and addresses of petition signers are not public information, and that even the proponents of a petition are not permitted to see their own petition, after it has been submitted. So, at least California is symmetrical, and denies the information to both sides.

On December 7, Alabama filed its brief in Shugart v Chapman, the case pending in the 11th circuit over whether a state can require an independent candidate for US House to obtain more signatures than an independent candidate for president.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice, in 1979, and again in 1992, that states cannot require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than for statewide office. Alabama argues that those precedents don’t apply if the statewide office is the office of President.

The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in both 1979 and 1992 that when a state requires more signatures for an office in just part of the state than for a statewide office, that type of disparity is discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court also said in both cases that discriminatory ballot access laws cannot survive unless the state can show that the law is needed for a compelling state interest. But a few months later in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court said that if the law under challenge is not discriminatory, then it can survive if it merely has a rational basis.

Alabama’s brief insists that the rational basis test applies, but the brief does not really address the point that since this case involves a discriminatory ballot access law, the rational basis test does not apply. And, indeed, it seems obvious that if Alabama can get along with 5,000 signatures for an independent candidate for President, there is no compelling state need to require more than 5,000 signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House.

Independent Political Report links to this Rasmussen Poll, which asks voters which party they would support for Congress in 2010 if their choices were limited to the Democratic Party nominee, the Republican Party nominee, and the nominee of a party called the “Tea Party.” There is no such political party. One wishes Rasmussen Polls had done a poll that asks voters to choose among parties that actually exist.

The results are: Democratic 36%, Tea Party 23%, Republican 18%, other or undecided 22%.