On March 12, Dennis Kucinich filed this brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th circuit, in his Texas primary ballot access case.

Kucinich had been excluded from the Texas Democratic presidential primary because he wouldn’t sign an oath, pledging to “fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be.” The Texas Democratic Party wrote this oath, but does not impose a similar oath for anyone running in its primaries for office other than president. No other state Democratic Party, and no state unit of the Republican Party, has a similar oath.

Among the points made by Kucinich are: “The oath is either meaningless and thus protects no interest, or it is so meaningful that it can be the sole basis for excluding a candidate from appearing on the ballot.” The District Court had said the oath is legally meaningless and that someone in Kucinich’s position therefore had no real complaint against the oath. Kucinich vigorously contests the idea that the oath is meaningless.

Kucinich also argues, “If left unchecked, the district court’s analysis would permit a nefarious state political committee to promulgate rules designed to exclude certain candidates from the opportunity to win any of the state’s convention delegates.”

Kucinich also points out that in Jenness v Fortson, the U.S. Supreme Court said in footnote 25 that anyone with any political views is free to run in any major party primary. Therefore, it wasn’t so serious that third parties and independent candidates couldn’t get on the general election ballot. Footnote 25 of Jenness v Fortson is completely outmoded, given the more recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions protecting the right of political parties to run their own nominations process. Kucinich is doing a great service by reminding the 5th Circuit (and, perhaps, ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court itself) about this outmoded part of Jenness v Fortson.

Indiana requires presidential primary candidates to submit 4,500 signatures in order to appear on a major party presidential primary. Furthermore, there must be 500 signatures from each of the state’s 9 U.S. House districts. John McCain’s petition was upheld on March 12 by the Indiana Election Commission, even though there was doubt that he had 500 valid signatures from the 4th district.

McCain submitted 498 signatures that everyone agrees were valid, from the 4th district, on February 12. There were also 3 signatures on a petition from Monroe County (a county that is split into two different U.S. House districts) that were questionable, because that petition didn’t say which U.S. House district they were from.

McCain then submitted another 13 valid signatures from the 4th district on February 22.

Indiana practice is not to accept petitions on a piecemeal basis. In other words, petitioners only get to turn in signatures once. If there aren’t enough, a supplemental petition isn’t permitted, even if the supplemental petition is turned in on or before the deadline.

It is also Indiana practice that petition forms must be completely filled out, and omitting the district number is usually fatal.

Now, though, the Indiana Election Commission has set a good precedent, and it seems that in the future, Indiana will be forced to let other petitions also be submitted in sections, not necessarily all at once. The Indiana Election Commission members voiced the opinion that the voters should not be deprived of their opportunity to vote for McCain in the Republican presidential primary in May over meaningless technicalities. Thanks to http://blueindiana.net for many of the details in this story. Also, thanks to Karl Hardy for making me aware of this story. Ironically, the 4th U.S. House district is one of the most Republican areas in Indiana; it is currently represented by Steve Buyer, who won almost 2:1 in November 2006.