28 February 2014
By Richard Winger
Ballot Access News
"On January 9, a U.S. District Court Magistrate denied Michigan’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit Erard v Ruth Johnson, e.d., 2:12cv-13627. The case had been filed in 2012 by a Socialist Party candidate for Congress, Matt Erard. The case argues that Michigan’s ballot access laws for
newly-qualifying parties are too severe. Currently the law requires
32,261 signatures, to be collected in six months. The petition blanks
all say in large print, inside a box, "Petition to Form New Political
Party. WARNING: a person who knowingly signs petitions to organize more
than one new state party, signs a petition to organize a new state
political party more than once, or signs a name other than his or her
own is violating the provisions of the Michigan election law."
The magistrate, in a 71-page ruling, said that whereas some of the
arguments in the lawsuit do not have merit, two aspects of the law are
probably unconstitutional: (1) only Michigan residents can circulate the
petition; (2) the wording on the petition intimidates many otherwise
willing signers from signing, and also falsely forces them to say they
are organizing the party. Similar wording on petitions to recognize new
parties has been held unconstitutional in seven other states (Kentucky,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and
Tennessee).
The magistrate did not find that the Michigan law violates equal
protection, even though Michigan requires approximately twice as many
signatures for a party to get on, than it requires votes for an old
party to remain on. She said all of the parties already on the ballot
had to collect the same number of signatures. This is not true, because
the Democratic and Republican Parties never had to submit any petition
to get on the ballot. Before 1939, Michigan didn’t require a petition
for any party to get on the ballot...."
Read More
No comments:
Post a Comment