On May 13, the Alabama Attorney General filed a new brief in Shugart v Chapman, the pending federal case that challenges the number of signatures needed for an independent candidate for U.S. House. Alabama is the only state in which an independent candidate for U.S. House needs more signatures than an independent candidate for president. In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party that states can’t require more signatures for an office encompassing just part of the state, than it requires for statewide office.
The new brief says that the 1979 precedent applied strict scrutiny, but that the U.S. Supreme Court no longer uses the strict scrutiny test for ballot access. However, in 1992 (the last time the U.S. Supreme Court discussed this matter) the Court said strict scrutiny still applies to discriminatory ballot access laws. The new Alabama brief does not discuss the 1992 case, which is called Burdick v Takushi.
Furthermore, the Alabama law doesn’t even pass the rational basis test. It is not rational to require an independent candidate for the U.S. House to get more signatures than the state requires for an independent candidate for president. If 5,000 signatures is enough to keep the presidential ballot uncluttered (and it is), why require an independent candidate for one of the seven U.S. House districts to get 6,100 signatures?