Chief Justice was a Foe of Minor Parties

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died September 3, was almost always a foe of minor parties and independent candidates. He voted against them on ballot access, and on debates, and on fusion. He wrote the decision in Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party. That decision not only upheld state laws that prohibit two parties from jointly nominating the same candidate. It went further, and seemed to suggest that it is constitutional to pass election laws of all kinds that hobble minor parties. He is the only justice who ever used the term “two-party system” to justify laws that discriminate against minor parties and independent candidates.

Rehnquist voted to keep John B. Anderson off the Ohio ballot in 1980, and he voted to keep Eugene McCarthy off the Texas ballot in 1976. Fortunately, both times he was in the court minority.

In 1999 he bitterly dissented when the Court majority invalidated state laws that require petition circulators to be registered voters. He charged that “convicted drug dealers” would now be able to circulate petitions.

In 1997, during the oral argument in Arkansas Educational TV Commission v Forbes (the case on whether public TV can sponsor candidate debates and invite only the Democrat and Republican), he sarcastically refered to the independent candidate who had filed the lawsuit as “Wacko Willie”.

Ohio Recount Case Moves Ahead

On September 1, a U.S. District Court in Ohio said a trial will be held in August 2006 in the Cobb-Badnarik recount lawsuit. The case, Rios v Blackwell, 3:04-cv-7724, northern district, was filed last year. It charges that even though the candidates who asked for the recount paid for it, many counties did not handle the recount according to law. The lawsuit charges that some counties did not really choose precincts to recount randomly.

Ohio Court Hearing on Sep. 8

On September 8, the Ohio State Court of Appeals will hear a case on whether initiative circulators must be Ohio residents. State ex rel Finan v Blackwell, 05-APD-08-0854, Columbus. The decision will be out soon afterwards. The decision will determine whether several election reform initiatives get on the ballot. They concern setting up a non-partisan method for drawing legislative and US House district boundaries; campaign finance restrictions; early voting; and setting up a State Board of Elections. The initiatives lack enough signatures if the signatures collected by out-of-state circulators can’t be counted.

New Mexico Presidential Recount Hearing

The New Mexico Supreme Court is hearing Cobb & Badnarik v New Mexico Canvassing Board (#29095) on August 29, 2005. The issue is whether the two 2004 presidential candidates needed to submit a deposit of $114,000, or $1,140,000, in order to request a recount of last year’s presidential vote.