On August 29, a judge on the 7th circuit issued in order in Stevo v Keith, the Illinois independent candidate ballot access case for U.S. House elections. The judge asked attorneys for the state to tell him when ballots will be printed. It is encouraging that the 7th circuit is actively looking at the case.
The case challenges Illinois law, which requires exactly 5,000 signatures in years that end in “2”, but which requires approximately 10,000 signatures in other election law years.
On August 29, Faye Coffield, an independent candidate for U.S. House in Georgia’s 4th district, filed a ballot access case in federal court. Coffield v Handel, 1:08-cv-2755, northern district.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s 5% (of the number of registered voters) petition requirement in 1971. However, at the time, the Court said that since a statewide petition had succeeded in both 1968 and 1970, the procedure couldn’t be that difficult. However, for U.S. House, no petitioning candidate has met the 5% requirement since 1964, when an independent did it. Back then, the petitions were due in October and weren’t checked. Also U.S. House boundaries did not split counties. It is always tough to get good petition validity when U.S. House districts are as complicated as they are in Georgia these days. Most voters don’t know which U.S. House district they live in, so the validity rate for such petitions is poor.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1974 that “there is no litmus test” to determine if a ballot access law is constitutional or not, but said one way to know is to see how often the law is used. Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Crawford v Marion County Election Board earlier this year again mentioned that 1974 test.
Although the Judge who is handling Bob Barr’s ballot access case had initially expected to rule by today, a flurry of post-hearing briefs has delayed the decision. It is expected next week.
On August 29, the Pennsylvania Constitution Party asked a U.S. District Court to put its statewide nominees on the ballot. The party needed 24,666 signatures by August 1. It turned in about 23,000 on the deadline, and another 8,000 a few weeks later. Therefore, the party is asking the court to set aside the August 1 deadline. The case is Baldwin v Cortes, 08-1626.
The case is dependent on both Anderson v Celebrezze, and also on the point that the Pennsylvania deadline was never passed by the state legislature.
On August 29, the Ohio Constitution Party amended its complaint, to ask that a federal court put it on the ballot for president and vice-president. The party already complied with the independent petition for president, so the only effect of this part of the lawsuit is that the state would print “Constitution Party” on the ballot next to Chuck Baldwin’s name, instead of “no-party candidate” or “other party candidate” or no label at all.
The Ohio Constitution Party had filed its original lawsuit on July 9, but the subject of the original complaint was to protect its candidate for Attorney General, Robert Owens, from being challenged. Owens had voted in the March Republican primary, and he was afraid his ballot status would be challenged because of that. But, as it turns out, no one ever challenged him, so the original case probably would have been dismissed, if it had not been amended to bring up the new issue of Baldwin’s ballot label.
The amended complaint also asks that the Ohio Secretary of State print “independent” next to Owens’ name on the ballot. He does not wish to have “Constitution Party” next to his name on the ballot. This part of the complaint is arguing that Ohio is obliged to print “independent” on the ballot for independent candidates. Ohio law says the label for candidates who use the independent procedure must be either no label, or “no-party candidate” or “other-party candidate.” But in the past, the Minnesota and Massachusetts Supreme Courts have both ruled that “independent” is such a unique generic word, that states cannot bar the use of the word on the ballot for independent candidates who wish that label.
