On September 18, a U.S. District Court in South Carolina refused to put Eugene Platt on the ballot for state house, as the Green Party nominee. South Carolina permits fusion. However, the law says that if a candidate seeks the nomination of two different parties, he or she must win both of them, or will be unable to accept either party nomination. Eugene Platt won the Green Party nomination in April. Then he tried for the Democratic nomination, but he lost the June primary. Now he can’t run at all. This is a serious blow to the South Carolina Green Party. Platt is a local office-holder and some believed that he could have won the state legislative race.

It is peculiar that a state which permits fusion, would at the same time have a rule that says if a candidates tries to get the nomination of two parties, that candidate must win both, or can’t run at all. One doubts that Platt would be off the ballot if he had first won the Democratic nomination, and then tried and failed to get the Green Party nomination. Thanks to David Gillespie for this news.

On September 17, Ohio elections officials confirmed that the Green Party will have a candidate on the ballot for U.S. House. He is Dennis Spisak, running in the 6th district (the district in southeastern Ohio that runs along the Ohio River). Although a court had ordered the Ohio Green Party placed on the ballot earlier this month, Spisak had not been a named co-plaintiff. Ohio elections officials recently asked him for proof that the Ohio Green Party had nominated him. He supplied that proof, and is now on the ballot. Ohio elections officials have been very fair to minor parties this year.

This is the first time a “left” minor party has had candidates on the Ohio ballot for U.S. House, with the party label, since 1972.

On September 17, U.S. District Court Judge John Woodcock, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled against an independent candidate for U.S. Senate. The candidate, Laurie Dobson, turned her signatures in on time to the town clerks, but some town clerks did not finish checking her signatures in time for her to take them to the Secretary of State. Dobson v Dunlap, 1:08-cv-00292. Here is the decision.

This decision is one of the worst ballot access decisions ever issued by a federal judge. Even though the candidate obeyed the statutory deadline, the judge blames the candidate for not anticipating that the town clerks wouldn’t have enough time to finish the job. So, the candidate who obeyed the law is punished because the government did not do its job. Judge Woodcock wrote, “A reasonably prudent candidate could and should anticipate the short turnaround time for the registrars and avoid procrastination by filing for and obtaining certifications throughout the signature gathering interval and well in advance of the deadline…Ms. Dobson had the statutory right to wait until 5 p.m. on the statutory deadline before delivering the petitions, but consequences of her decision to delay until the last possible moment is not of constitutional significance.”

The judge also said the May 27 deadline is constitutional. Of course, what he is really saying is that the true deadline is earlier than May 27. In support of his conclusion that the May 27 deadline is constitutional, Judge Woodcock cited the only published precedent anywhere in the nation that upholds an independent candidate deadline earlier than May. He cited Lawrence v Blackwell, a 2005 decision by the 6th circuit which upheld Ohio’s March petition deadline for non-presidential independents. He could have mentioned precedents that struck down March, April, and May deadlines, but he did not do so. Those precedents (for independent candidates other than presidential candidates) are from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Thanks very much to Deborah Deitsch-Perez for obtaining a copy of the opinion.