Krist Novoselic’s op-ed in today’s Yakima Herald-Republic is here.
18
In 2021, the Idaho legislature passed HB 231, which changed the petition deadline for independent presidential candidates from August 25 of the election year, to the tenth Friday before the primaries. Therefore the 2024 deadline is March 10.
This change violates the U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 US 780 (1983), which said early petition deadlines for independent presidential candidates are unconstitutional. Idaho is the third state to have passed a law recently that contradicts Anderson v Celebrezze. The others are Utah (which did so in 2022) and North Carolina (which did so in 2021).
BAN had not previously reported this Idaho development. Thanks to Paul Rossi for the news. It is likely that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., will soon file a lawsuit against the Utah deadline. Utah already lost on this issue in 1984, when Lyndon LaRouche sued to overturn the then-April deadline. Utah then changed it to September, but in recent years forgot why it did that, and moved it to January.
On December 1, the Tennessee Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit against the Tennessee law that requires 56,083 valid signatures for a party to appear on the ballot. Darnell v Hargett, m.d., 3:23cv-1266. It is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Aleta A. Trauger, a Clinton appointee.
The Tennessee petition is so difficult, it has existed since 1961 and has not ever been used, except by the American Party in 1968. It requires a petition of 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote. Before 1961, any party could get on the ballot just by holding a convention, with no petition required. Yet Tennessee never had more than six parties on the ballot.
UPDATE: here is the Complaint.
On December 1, the Eighth Circuit again upheld the wording on the Minnesota petition form that is used by independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties. The petition says that the signer does not intend to vote in the upcoming primary for the particular office that the independent candidate is running for.
The decision was not surprising, because the same court had earlier upheld the wording in a Libertarian Party case.
The wording makes it more difficult to collect signatures. But the state and the courts always says the wording has no teeth, because taken literally, it doesn’t prevent anyone from both signing and then voting in the primary. The petition wording relates to the individual’s present state of mind, but of course the individual is free to change his or her mind later. Furthermore because voting is secret, no one can know whether a primary voter votes for any particular office in the primary.
The Minnesota Libertarian Party is lobbying to get the wording on the petition changed, and believes it will get a bill introduced in 2024. Thanks to Derek Muller for this news. Here is the decision in Independent-Alliance Party of Minnesota v Simon, 23-1074. It is only eight pages.
Here is an interesting column by Elliot Ackerman from theatlantic.com on No Labels’ effect now and in the future regarding ballot access for parties and candidates in the United States.