Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 09/08/2006 12:01:50 PM PDT by freepatriot32
CINCINNATI - Ohio's rules for primary elections make it too hard for minor parties to get on the ballot, a federal appeals court ruled.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said the primary requirements allow the Republican and Democratic parties to monopolize general elections. Ohio "is among the most restrictive, if not the most restrictive, state in granting minor parties access to the ballot," the ruling said.
Parties automatically qualify for the primary ballot if their candidate for governor or president received at least 5 percent of the vote in the previous Ohio election. Any other party must file a petition four months before the primary election with signatures equal to 1 percent of the number of total votes cast in the last state election.
That requirement meant minor parties had to file petitions with 32,290 voter signatures by Nov. 3, 2003, to get candidates on the March 2004 primary ballot.
In a 2-1 opinion Wednesday, the court said that the rules were unnecessarily strict and tougher for small parties to meet. The court ruled Ohio's rules violate the First Amendment and have "a negative impact ... on minor parties and on political activity as a whole in Ohio."
"The practical effect of the state's election law has been to limit the rights of parties other than the Republican and Democratic Parties from appearing on the general election ballot," Gibbons wrote.
Ohio's Libertarian Party had appealed a lower court's decision to throw out its 2004 lawsuit against Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who didn't allow the party's candidates on the ballot that year because of problems with petitions.
Gary Sinawski, a New York attorney who helped argue the Libertarian case, said gathering signatures so far in advance comes before most people are thinking about the next election.
"People say 'What are you gathering signatures for?'" said Sinawski.
Judge Richard Griffin dissented, saying that the Libertarians had been able to follow the rules in previous elections. Ohio election rules treat the Libertarians the same as any other political party, Griffin wrote.
State officials have contended that the rules are fair because they apply to all parties. Attorney General Jim Petro could seek a hearing by the full 6th Circuit or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the ruling stands, the state Legislature might have to rewrite the election rules.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Alternative parties are the wave of the future. I will be watching this case too.
Good news for PA.........too bad Ohio is 6th Circuit.
Well, duh, that's the whole point. The duopoly must retain power.
Did you mean good news for Ohio, too bad PA is 3rd circuit?
Not the greatest title in the world -- my 1st thought was that this article had something to do with keg registration in Cincinnati...
We need to break this two-faced-party system we have now.
We're back to the point that we can't tell the teams apart without a program.
One percent sounds reasonable for a presidential or gubernatorial candidate.
If we're not careful here we'll end up with parliamentary style government with coalitions and all the mischief that goes along with that.
Thanks, I didn't realize that 'their' decision could benefit us.
Okay, that is good news for PA. You were right to begin with and I shouldn't have questioned your meaning.
What part of free and equal elections don't you understand? These exclusionary rules were not handed down from on high. They are the recent concoctions of the two major parties to protect their fiefdoms and their power.
"One percent sounds reasonable for a presidential or gubernatorial candidate."
It's not. For a small political party, the biggest barrier to participation is not being able to get on the ballot in the first place.
Coke and Pepsi dominate the cola industry. Now imagine a situation where a competing soft drink company couldn't sell their new and perhaps better cola unless they could ensure that their product would get a 5% share of the market right off, or had to get 1% of soft drink consumers to sign a petition to allow it to be sold. You would never see any new soft drinks on the market.
This issue has nothing to do with small parties "cluttering up" the ballot. It has everything to do with the two entrenched political parties deciding amongst themselves that they'll never allow a third party to operate on a level playing field. I'm not wild about judicial activism, but this is a case where the courts are flat out right. The two political parties that make the rules are using that power to try to ensure that they never have any competition.
Don't like it? Simple solution: Don't vote for em'!
If the law is so bad,the people will tell their elected officials to fix it.
Yeah, lots of Southern Blacks had a voice on Dread Scott too.
I probably wouldn't feel so strongly if judges elsewhere hadn't decided that requiring voters to provide photo ID was some kind of hardship.
100% behind you there, God forbid that we not allow all the dead people in Cook County, IL to express their opinion in the voting booth.
One percent sounds reasonable for a presidential or gubernatorial candidate.
Last third party candidate that ran for office in my home state garnered 13% of the vote against Tom Ridge, the incumbant. She was a Constitution Party member.
If we're not careful here we'll end up with parliamentary style government with coalitions and all the mischief that goes along with that.
...as if we didn't have that already in all but name. More likely, candidates' feet will be 'held to the fire' when it comes time to fulfill the promises that they made during the campaign.
No....feel free to stop me anytime I blather.....
It's happening with increasing frequency. Just ask the folks on the PA board. LOL.
Nah, don't believe them. They say the same thing about me. And worse. LOL
I think I understand free elections,although I'm not quite sure what an "equal" election describes.
Judge Richard Griffin dissented, saying that the Libertarians had been able to follow the rules in previous elections. Ohio election rules treat the Libertarians the same as any other political party, Griffin wrote...State officials have contended that the rules are fair because they apply to all parties.If the ruling stands, the state Legislature might have to rewrite the election rules.-http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_re_us/ohio_third_parties_6
The court ruled Ohio's rules violate the First Amendment...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I guess they believe that the freedom of speech(assemble?) is being violated.I just don't see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.