From a press release issued by the Libertarian Party of NC:
The N.C. Appeals Court decision upholding the state’s restrictive ballot access laws is “a shameful day for our state,” said Dr. Mike Munger, 2008 Libertarian Party candidate for governor.
…
Dr. Munger, chair of Duke University political science department agreed that judges properly show substantial deference to the legislature in these sorts of ‘time, place, and manner’ of elections.“But at some point our justice system is going to have to take up the cause of the citizens, because right now the General Assembly is letting us down,” he said.
“The North Carolina Constitution guarantees a citizen’s right to vote for the party or candidate of their choice. Right now, that right is being denied. The courts are bending over backwards to give the legislature a chance to make this right. So, for now, the ball is once more in the court of the General Assembly.”
…
Since this was a 2-1 decision the full court will automatically hear the case if one of the parties requests it. [LPNC Chair] Howe said the Libertarians will almost certainly make such a request.Howe said Libertarians were heartened by Judge Calabria’s dissenting opinion, in which she said, “North Carolina’s two percent statewide requirements for both ballot access and ballot retention place too onerous a burden on the fundamental rights of members of third parties under the State Constitution.”
Judge Calabria noted that the state permits ballot access under far less burdensome requirements for unaffiliated candidates, and thus has proven that it can accomplish its “compelling interest” in ballot regulation in a less restrictive fashion.
The LPNC’s Chair, Barbara Howe, later indicated that the case absolutely would go to appeal.
The Fayetteville (NC) Observer comments about the decision in an editorial. They encourage the NC Supreme Court to consider that if it does not take action, the chance of legislative relief is slim:
To be sure, the legislature could make the ballot requirements less onerous. But just as surely, it won’t.
In theory, all parties must jump through the same hoops. But the two major parties invented a system in which only third parties need even think about qualifying, unless Republicans or Democrats meet with some catastrophe comparable to a supervirus or a nuclear attack. …
This is about a system in which small parties can win only temporary legitimacy, and must keep winning it through tedious and costly processes while the major parties go their merry way.
Which is, of course, exactly what many legislators had in mind.
13 responses so far ↓
1 Don Lake, late at night // Oct 23, 2009 at 3:56 am
Thx Professor: spot lighting the obvious!
2 Susan Hogarth // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:06 am
More press:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=22226
3 NewFederalist // Oct 23, 2009 at 7:38 am
Thanks for the link, Susan. Very informative.
4 Susan Hogarth // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:45 am
I exist to serve!
(Today is _Dune_ quote day for me, evidently. That’s number 2 already:)
5 robert capozzi // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:54 am
“Bend like a reed in the wind.”
6 Scott Lieberman // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:32 am
NC has 12 statewide races besides Governor.
If they lose all of the appeals, maybe the LPNC can get the Legislature to change the law to allow ballot retention if a party gets 2% for any statewide race (including US Senate). As long the state lets a party qualify all of their
statewide candidates with one petition, that change would vastly improve ballot access in NC.
7 Mike Munger // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Susan, you exist to serve VOLUNTARILY. And we all appreciate it.
Scott: an excellent point. That might provide a way to go on lobbying for a concession from the legislature. Just expanding to Senate would help a lot.
8 Scott Lieberman // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:11 pm
“If they lose all of the appeals, maybe the LPNC can get the Legislature to change the law to allow ballot retention if a party gets 2% for any statewide race (including US Senate) SL
***********************************
And if they think lowering the retention threshold to 2% for all statewide offices is “too easy”, and would lead to “ballot confusion”, then you can ask them to lower it to 2% for Pres, Gov, or US Senate; OR 5% for any other statewide office.
9 Susan Hogarth // Oct 24, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Scoot, not every one of those races will serve. There’s a reason for that. Right now I can’t think of it, though.
10 Susan Hogarth // Oct 24, 2009 at 5:08 pm
err, Scott, not Scoot
11 Susan Hogarth // Oct 24, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Whoops – sorry – I actually just took time to read and understand your point, Scott.
Note to self: read first, then respond.
12 Susan Hogarth // Oct 24, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Mike: Have you read _Dune_? The BG ‘exist to serve’ by pretty much running people’s lives – behind the scenes, of course
And, to their credit, (mostly) not by force.
13 Andrew Evans // Oct 25, 2009 at 11:53 am
IMHO all parties and organizations must unite in the cause to fight against repressive ballot access laws. We have worked with our Libertarian friends in Missouri to help combat this. Only by chaning the ballott access laws will any other party or organization other than the Dems and Reps ever stand a chance to bring true representation to government.
Leave a Comment