On May 23, the Pennsylvania qualified minor parties filed their appeal brief in the 3rd circuit. The brief points out that the U.S. District Court Judge totally ignored the main point of the lawsuit…that the Green, Libertarian and Constitution Parties already meet Pennsylvania’s definition of “qualified party” (by polling over 67,000 votes in 2004 for at least one of their statewide nominees). Therefore, it is redundant to require them to submit 67,000 signatures on petitions, before their statewide nominees can be on the November ballot.

The brief also is noteworthy for its criticism of the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court precedent Jenness v Fortson. Normally it is not a good idea for any brief to criticize a U.S. Supreme Court precedent; briefs (at least in courts below the U.S. Supreme Court level) generally must simply accept all U.S. Supreme Court precedents, not criticize them. However, the new Pennsylvania brief’s criticism of Jenness v Fortson is not essential to that brief’s main argument. And it is valuable that a brief break with tradition and criticize Jenness v Fortson. Jenness v Fortson is a deeply flawed decision; it needs to be criticized. Jenness v Fortson was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1971 that upheld petition requirements (for independent candidates and new and unqualified political parties) of 5% of the number of registered voters. Jenness v Fortson is replete with factual errors, and also with doctrines that have since been repudiated by the U.S. Supreme Court itself. For example, a footnote in Jenness v Fortson suggests that if the plaintiff Socialist Workers Party nominees couldn’t get 88,000 signatures, they were free to run in the major party primaries. Since then, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have supported the right of political parties to exclude individuals who are not in sympathy with party principles, so Jenness is outdated.

The Connecticut legislature adjourned, and failed to pass any of the 5 bills that would have eased the discriminatory aspects of the “Clean Elections” public funding bills. The Connecticut legislature had passed “Clean Elections” in 2005, but basically excluded all candidates except Democrats and Republicans. The funding does not begin until 2008, so it is possible something will be done in the 2007 legislative session. If not, the ACLU will sue on behalf of the Green Party.

Kevin Zeese has been running for the U.S. Senate in Maryland for approximately six months, with the likely or certain endorsement of three different minor parties (Populist, Green and Libertarian). All three of those parties are on the Maryland ballot. However, Maryland law requires him to choose just one of them, and he has recently chosen “Green” for his ballot label. Zeese was an active supporter of Ralph Nader in 2004 and helped to create the Populist Party in Maryland (the Populist Party was formed largely as a vehicle for Nader’s candidacy, since the ballot access requirements are easier for new parties in Maryland than they are for independent candidates). Zeese’s chief issue is opposition to having the U.S. military in Iraq.