Fourth circuit issues first favorable minor party or independent candidate ruling in 21 years

On July 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, issued a 14-page ruling that virtually guarantees that the Virginia residency requirement for circulators will be held unconstitutional. The decision is Lux v Judd, 10-1997. It overrules two U.S. District Court decisions issued last year, the one in this case, and one in a case with identical issues called Libertarian Party of Virginia v Virginia State Board of Elections.

The two lower courts last year had upheld the Virginia law that makes it illegal for anyone to circulate a candidate petition outside of his or her home U.S. House district. Both U.S. District Court decisions, the Lux decision, and the Libertarian Party decision, had said the law is needed to prevent the ballot from being too crowded. This conclusion ignored the evidence in these cases that in the entire history of government-printed ballots in Virginia, there has never been a U.S. House race with more than six candidates on the general election ballot, even though before 1936, independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, did not need any signatures or any fee to get on the ballot.

The July 6, 2011 decision of the 4th circuit rebuts the “crowded ballot” argument. It says that the requirement that an independent or unqualified party nominee obtain 1,000 signatures to run for U.S. House is sufficient to keep the general election ballot from being too crowded. It also says that the restriction cannot be justified by the need to prevent fraud. It said that possibly a requirement that the circulator live in Virginia would help combat fraud, but the law doesn’t just require residence in Virginia, it requires it inside the congressional district.

The 4th circuit remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court, to see if the state wishes to present any new rationale on why the requirement is necessary. However, it is difficult to imagine what new interest Virginia may suggest. Constitutional lawsuits on residency requirements for circulators have been fought in at least 17 other states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), and none of these states has ever come up with any state interest in a residency requirement for circulators, other than the two rejected by the 4th circuit.

Source: Ballot Access News

Nader asks McAuliffe to set the Record Straight

Former Campaign Manager Theresa Amato’s new book “Grand Illusion” details McAuliffe’s efforts to knock Nader out of the 2004 Presidential Election In her soon-to-be-released book, Grand Illusion, The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny (The New Press 2009), lawyer Theresa Amato charges that on June 23, 2004, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe promised unspecified “resources” [...]

Free & Equal asks: Will the Real Terry McAuliffe Please Stand Up?

Terry McAuliffe’s Record as Former DNC Chairman Contradicts Candidate McAuliffe’s Rhetoric in Virginia’s 2009 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary In her soon-to-be-released book, Grand Illusion, The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny (The New Press 2009), lawyer Theresa Amato charges that on June 23, 2004, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe promised unspecified “resources” to [...]