On July 23, U.S. District Court Mark Fuller, a Bush, Jr., appointee, upheld the number of signatures required for an independent U.S. House candidate in Alabama. Shugart v Chapman, middle district, 2:08-cv-1016-MEF. Here is the 7-page decision.

Alabama requires 5,000 signatures for an independent presidential candidate, but in 2008 it required 6,155 for an independent U.S. House candidate in the 6th district. Alabama is the only state that requires more signatures for any independent candidates for U.S. House than it requires for an independent candidate for President.

In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously said that states may not require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than in the entire state. Relying on that case, U.S. District Courts in Colorado in 1994, and in Iowa in 1992, declared those states’ requirements for U.S. House to be unconstitutional because at the time, both states required fewer signatures for statewide candidates.

Judge Fuller said that the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court opinion (Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party) does not apply to this case, because the U.S. Supreme Court was only concerned about a comparison between statewide office and “municipal office.” Judge Fuller wrote, “While Illinois State Board addressed the difference between requirements to be on a statewide ballot and those to be on a municipal ballot within that same state, this lawsuit challenges differences between requirements to be on the ballot for a U.S. Congressional District and U.S. President.”

The Alabama decision is careful to avoid the word “Chicago”, instead referring only to “a municipality”. Chicago is so populous, it has six U.S. House Districts. The specific facts in the U.S. Supreme Court case in 1979 were that a statewide independent needed 25,000 signatures, but an independent candidate for Mayor of Chicago needed 35,947 signatures. The U.S. Supreme Court felt it obvious that if 25,000 signatures is enough for an office in the entire state, there is no state interest in requiring more signatures for just part of the state. It said, “Yet appellant has advanced no reason, much less a compelling one, why the State needs a more stringent requirement for Chicago.” The U.S. Supreme Court did not confine its holding to “municipal offices” per se. If it is foolish for a state to require more signatures for a jurisdiction that holds a population of six U.S. House districts (than it does for statewide office), it is even sillier for any medium-sized state to require more signatures in just a single U.S. House district than it does for statewide office.

Judge Fuller also did not mention Norman v Reed, a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1992 that again struck down Illinois petition requirements, this time because the state was still requiring 25,000 for statewide office but 50,000 for Cook County office. Also Judge Fuller did not mention the U.S. District Court decisions in Iowa and Colorado that said the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision does apply to U.S. House districts.

The voters of the 6th district have had only one candidate on their November ballots for Congress, in 2004, 2006 and 2008. The incumbent, Spencer Bachus, has not had a Democratic opponent since 1998, even though Democrats could run someone with no signatures.

On July 22, the ACLU sued Pennsylvania in federal court over a 2002 law that makes it illegal to pay voter registration activists on a per-registrant basis. The case is ACORN v Corbett, western district, 2:09-cv-00951-NBF. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Nora Barry Fischer, a Bush Jr. appointee.

Ironically, ACORN does not pay its workers per registration. It pays by the hour. But, the complaint says, “No employer can afford to have unproductive employees.” The lawsuit charges that Pennsylvania officials have been interpreting the law to make it impossible to run a paid registration drive. The 19-page complaint is here.