On January 25, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court had ruled that Carl Romanelli, Green Party candidate for US Senate in 2006, must pay $81,102.19 in court costs, for the privilege of being removed from the ballot. His brief, appealing that decision, was filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on April 26. The state’s response is due on May 26. The case is called In re Nomination Papers of Rogers.
John Hartman attempted to be an independent candidate for US House in Illinois in the past. He worked very hard to collect the needed 14,000 signatures, but he fell short. Consequently, he is very motivated to influence the Illinois legislature to pass a ballot access reform bill to ease the US House requirement. He is actively lobbying in Springfield, urging legislators to amend HB 632. Specifically, he wants them to lower the 5% petition for district office to something easier. He is cautiously optimistic. Anyone in Illinois who wants to help him should do so. His e-mail is jhartman56@hotmail.com.
On May 21, the state of Washington and its ally, the Grange, filed their main briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case over whether a state can hold a “top-two” primary and put party labels on the ballots. The case is State of Washington v Washington State Republican Party, no. 06-713/06-730.
The state’s brief tries to rebut the Libertarian Party’s earlier brief on ballot access. The state says that the U.S. Constitution permits states to require a modicum of support before printing a party or its nominees on the general election ballot. The state is correct. But what the state fails to acknowledge is that there is a limit on how much support the state can require. That limit is 5% of the electorate. The top-two system in Washington requires, on the average, 30% support for a candidate to win a place on the November ballot. This is based on empirical data, showing that the average 2nd place finisher polls 30% in the old blanket primary. Ergo, the “top-two” system requires a candidate to show support of, on the average, 30% to get on the general election ballot.
In 1968, George Wallace was running for president in the general election. He could have qualified for the Ohio presidential primary in 1968 with only 1,000 signatures. After all, he was a Democrat, so he was free to run in the Democratic presidential primary. But he didn’t want to run in primaries; he wanted to run in the general election. And the U.S. Supreme Court put him on the November ballot in Ohio, in Williams v Rhodes, and struck down the 15% petition requirement for new parties. General election ballot access is protected by the U.S. Constitution. This is especially true in congressional elections, because a federal law provides that congressional election day is in November, and any congressional run-off must be after the November election day. By contrast, Washington state’s “top-two” system would confine minor party and independent candidates to the September primary.
The Grange’s brief completely ignores the Libertarian Party’s ballot access argument.
On May 21, the state of Washington and its ally, the Grange, filed their main briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case over whether a state can hold a “top-two” primary and put party labels on the ballots. The case is State of Washington v Washington State Republican Party, no. 06-713/06-730.
The state’s brief tries to rebut the Libertarian Party’s earlier brief on ballot access. The state says that the U.S. Constitution permits states to require a modicum of support before printing a party or its nominees on the general election ballot. The state is correct. But what the state fails to acknowledge is that there is a limit on how much support the state can require. That limit is 5% of the electorate. The top-two system in Washington requires, on the average, 30% support for a candidate to win a place on the November ballot. This is based on empirical data, showing that the average 2nd place finisher polls 30% in the old blanket primary. Ergo, the “top-two” system requires a candidate to show support of, on the average, 30% to get on the general election ballot.
In 1968, George Wallace was running for president in the general election. He could have qualified for the Ohio presidential primary in 1968 with only 1,000 signatures. After all, he was a Democrat, so he was free to run in the Democratic presidential primary. But he didn’t want to run in primaries; he wanted to run in the general election. And the U.S. Supreme Court put him on the November ballot in Ohio, in Williams v Rhodes, and struck down the 15% petition requirement for new parties. General election ballot access is protected by the U.S. Constitution. This is especially true in congressional elections, because a federal law provides that congressional election day is in November, and any congressional run-off must be after the November election day. By contrast, Washington state’s “top-two” system would confine minor party and independent candidates to the September primary.
The Grange’s brief completely ignores the Libertarian Party’s ballot access argument.
On May 21, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner released a regulation on how new and minor parties should get on the ballot. This action is needed because the old law was declared unconstitutional last year, and the legislature seems disinclined to pass a new law. The regulation requires a petition signed by one-half of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, due November 26, 2007.
The old, unconstitutional law would have required a petition of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, due in early November. The old law would have required 40,228 signatures; the directive requires 20,114.
The regulation also says that a party that only wants to run candidates for presidential elector, president and vice-president, needs 20,114 signatures by August 18, 2008. Using this type of petition permits the party label. The old “independent” petition requirement of 5,000 would still exist, but the only labels permitted are “no-party candidate” and “other-party candidate.”
