This year, the Socialist Party used an almost-forgotten method for getting its presidential candidate on the Iowa ballot. Iowa gives statewide minor party and independent candidates a choice of either submitting 1,500 signatures, or attracting 250 voters to a meeting. The latter method seems difficult, and as far as is known, no one had used it since 1968, when it only required 50 attendees.

However, recently the Secretary of State ruled that the 250-person meeting requirement may be satisfied by holding a meeting at an outdoor location. The Socialist Party set up its meeting at an outdoor spot on the campus of the University of Iowa. That spot had lots of pedestrian traffic. Persons walking by were asked to sign, and that person was considered an attendee. Washington state has a similar relaxed attitude toward what constitutes a “meeting.” By contrast, Oregon has a very rigid idea about such meetings. Oregon has a 1,000-person attendence alternative for statewide independent candidates, but all 1,000 voters must be in a room simultaneously, or the meeting is invalid.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter has asked attorneys for Herb Hoffman whether Hoffman merely needs a stay of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court opinion, or whether he needs an injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court putting Hoffman on the ballot. Justice Souter handles emergency requests for most New England states while the U.S. Supreme Court is not sitting.

This is a good sign that Justice Souter is interested in the Hoffman ballot access case. While nothing concrete has happened, it shows that Souter is taking Hoffman’s request seriously. Hoffman is the independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine. See the post of August 15 for a description of his ballot access problem. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t given injunctive relief, putting a candidate on a ballot, since 1990. when that Court put the Harold Washington Party on the Cook County, Illinois ballot, for its candidates for county office.

The Hoffman ballot access case in the U.S. Supreme Court is 08A138.

On August 15, a U.S. District Court in Ohio conducted a hearing by telephone in the Socialist Party’s ballot access case. The case is called Moore v Brunner. The first half of this case, back in June, had resulted in an injunction letting out-of-staters circulate independent petitions in Ohio. Then the complaint had been amended, to ask that the Socialist Party be recognized as a party in Ohio, since the Ohio law on how a party is recognized is void. The case was then transferred to a different judge (i.e., the same judge who had put the Libertarian Party on the ballot in July). A decision is expected early next week. If the Socialist Party gets on the ballot in Ohio, it will be the first time the word “Socialist” has appeared on an Ohio ballot since 1972, when the Socialist Labor Party last appeared on the Ohio ballot.