Supreme Court Leaves Georgia's Onerous Ballot Access Law in Place
Despite the state's law allowing no third-party House candidates to get on the ballot in 60 years, the Court declined to hear the case.
This morning, the Supreme Court released its order list indicating which cases it will and will not be taking up in the new term. Notably, the Court declined to address Georgia laws that have kept third-party candidates off election ballots in the state for decades.
Candidates for federal elected office in Georgia face different hurdles depending on which party they belong to. Republicans and Democrats get on the ballot automatically, since each party received at least 20 percent of the vote in previous elections. But for any third-party candidate running for a districted position, like in the House of Representatives, they must first collect signatures from 5 percent of all registered voters in their district—between 20,000 and 27,000. That task has proved so daunting that no third-party House candidate from Georgia has achieved it in nearly six decades.
Cowen v. Raffensperger sought to overturn that discrepancy. Filed on behalf of the Libertarian Party (L.P.) of Georgia and several of its current and former candidates against Georgia's secretary of state, the lawsuit challenged the 5 percent requirement on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, saying it placed an undue burden on potential candidates.
In January, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, stating that while the L.P. "offers evidence to show that collecting petition signatures is costly and difficult," it nonetheless "has not shown that the endeavor is significantly more challenging than it was 50 years ago."
Today, the Supreme Court included Cowen on the list of cases it was declining to hear, effectively leaving the 11th Circuit decision in place.
In a statement to Reason, Martin Cowen, one of the plaintiffs, contends that the suit was filed on the basis of a previous case, Green Party of Ga. v. Kemp (2016), in which the District Court of the Northern District of Georgia established a requirement of 7,500 signatures statewide for presidential candidates, meaning that the Green Party of Georgia only had to get that many signatures statewide in order for one of its members to run for president. That decision was later affirmed by the 11th Circuit.
"I am shocked," Cowen says, "that the current signature requirement for a [House] candidate…has been sustained by SCOTUS. It was and is obvious to me that the impossible [hurdle] to obtain ballot access for congressional races in Georgia is unconstitutional. This result is an outrage."
Indeed, requiring 7,500 signatures statewide is much more reasonable than requiring 27,000 in a single Congressional district. As a result, while Georgia produces no third-party candidates for the U.S. House, Libertarians routinely run for Senate and governor.
"The members of the current US Supreme Court (except perhaps Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson) have signaled that they do not wish to extend the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to voters who wish to vote for minor party and independent candidates," Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, tells Reason. "This is clear, not only from their action today, but from their action over the last 30 years. They have denied cert to every appeal from any independent or minor party plaintiff, starting in 1992… The recent Georgia case is their worst refusal yet, though. The 11th circuit decision in Cowen v. Raffensperger contradicts every US Supreme Court ballot access decision ever issued, whether favorable or unfavorable."
Unless members of Georgia's Legislature take it upon themselves to change the law, third-party House candidates will still face an uphill battle to get on the ballot.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The most important thing to know about Georgia is that if strong beautiful Black woman Stacey Abrams doesn’t win, it can only mean the Republicans cheated. Again.
#ElectionsAreOnlyLegitimateWhenDemocratsWin
She is the only person that can overcome the obvious white supremacy racism patriarchy that runs rampant in the state that allows butplug to live there.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend (aps-04) persuaded me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
So for 30 years, the supremes have held the same opinion; yet it is, in your view, terrible.
I think I will go with them.
If the expense is so high, use volunteers; if you can’t get enough workers for that, how will your ever win the election? Just like the 5%, it is to the court a reasonable requirement. A mere thousand people out of 20,000, or 1,350 out of 27,000.
So for 30 years, the supremes have held the same opinion; yet it is, in your view, terrible.
And, it should be clear, it’s not like “Just choose the right decision, duh.” got us to where we are today. The laws that stand today stand because of the Warren Court’s “One man, one vote” policy. It’s tempting to say “Well just overturn the 5% requirement.”, but I can see how lots of legal scholars on both sides would rightly see that as (re)opening several historically-sealed cans of worms.
Edited for ‘bowf sidez’.
My guess is that it’s less that the number is reasonable and more that the States defining how their elections are run is so obvious in the constitution that the grounds see weak.
Except it’s clearly an equal protection violation, since the burden falls only on new parties. And there should be no onerous financial burden to run for office, maybe just a filing fee to recoup the state’s costs. “Free and fair” elections, remember?
There is no clear public benefit to leaving candidates off the ballot either. More candidates leads to higher turnout. The obvious cranks can be weeded out with a minimal signature requirement, something like 1,000 people statewide.
Make sure candidates pay for their advertising on the ballot and have have some minimal kind of campaign committee. If cranks get on the ballot, let the voters weed them out (or elect them).
Omitting someone from the ballot because they’re cranks is full-on viewpoint discrimination, which I thought the 1st Amendment forbade (outside the election context, of course).
But once we get into debates over how many signatures to require, we’re conceding vital ground to the adversary. Instead of standing foursquare for an honest ballot, where the voters themselves decide who’s a serious or electable candidate, we put upon third-party and independent candidates the burden of proving their worthiness vis-a-vis the cartel parties, violating the secret ballot, and subjecting supporters to harassment, since their signatures are public record.
I looked at the relevant statute when the story came up here, and it turns out the treatment is not so disparate. Those seeking the nomination of the established parties have to get signatures of 5% of their membership in the district to get on the primary ballot for most offices as well. I don’t know whether that’s good “news” or bad.
Translation: Only those who can win should be allowed to run!
The fly in your ointment is that the Democrat and Republican parties do NOT have to meet this requirement. They are automatically on the ballot. By law.
But look up what it takes to get on the ballot as candidate of those parties. Surprise!
And Georgia’s legislature will never ‘take it on themselves ‘ to improve ballot access because DeRps agree on that.
Is this even an issue that is raised by Libertarians that make it onto some ballot in Georgia – or do they just prattle the same bullshit as everywhere else?
As a general aside to Georgians? Are there competitive elections at the House level? Or are they all really one-party districts where the out party is just the electoral pressure valve to blow off steam?
Please define ballot access.
My guess it is anything that makes an election not able to be audited or secure in any manner.
Haha. Yes I’m sure the purpose of Jim Crow legislation in Georgia was to ensure auditable elections.
Democrats aren’t in absolute control so Jim Crow is not a threat.
That Jim Crow law is still on the books in Georgia – defended by R’s and you.
The voting rights bill signed by Kemp INCREASED turnout. So, clearly, you’re wrong and will not admit it.
Referring to a law that increased turnout as “Jim Crow” is a sign of either you being unbelievably uneducated about Jim Crow laws or that you are just a hack,
think of it like ranked-choice political partying.
Threadwinner.
Or the state just saving the voters from having to go through the “Top Two” charade.
What Reason fails to grasp is the Democrats and Republics also have to meet the 5% threshold so there is no 1st 2nd or 3rd or 4th party. You qualify or you don’t and there is nothing daunting or onerous about the law.
I can see the legitimate complaint that they need 20k+ per district but the Greens only needed 7.5k for a statewide access to the ballot. It’s different but close enough and a violation of the 5% rule.
Now if Joe had brought this up in his first story I might not have turned out my sympathy.
It’s a 1% rule for statewide offices. 5% for district offices
That only makes sense if Georgia only has 2 HoR districts.
On that basis it makes no sense. Upping the entry stakes as the pool gets smaller is about protectionism and nothing more.
No they don’t. They are already on the ballot, and so get to stay there. Most ballot access rules have similar provisions. Once you’re qualified for the ballot you stay qualified. The law was deliberately designed to keep third party and independent candidates off the ballot.
Georgia’s law originated when the CPA (kommunists) wanted to run a candidate, and the legislature panicked and shut them down. This was back at start of cold war, and there was no hope in hell the Communists could win. But just having them on the ballot was enough to make genteel plantation folk shit their pants in terror.
And so Georgia is the ONLY state that has never had a third party congressional candidate in sixty years. The only state out of fifty. So don’t act like this is a normal state of affairs. It is not.
The party has a place on the ballot. Look up what it takes for a candidate to get on the ballot for a primary in that party. I looked it up a few months ago. They need 5% too except for very local elections.
So, how many Libertarian® candidates have won statewide in GA?
Sorry but 5% doesn’t strike me as an impossible threshold. Should be able to get there with sex workers and food trucks alone.
70% of the population supports abortion, 5% should be EZPZ.
“has not shown that the endeavor is significantly more challenging than it was 50 years ago.” Why does that matter, particularly when no one has qualified who wasn’t R/D in 60 years?
I was going to say guesstimating but, upon further review, I have to go with ‘shitty reporting’.
Guesstimating: 2024 would make it 60 yrs., 2020 would round down to 50 yrs.
Shitty reporting: The 5% law is older than 60 yrs. The law that’s 50-60 yrs. requires validity checks, notarization, imposed a deadline, **and was subject to anti-racial redistricting**.
Otherwise, supporting racially-motivated redistricting and petition signature fraud in the South in the current era sounds like something Reason would trying to be blame on the Mises Caucus.
Georgia is the ONLY state who has not had a third party or independent congressional candidate in sixty years. Only state out of fifty. For sixty years. Yet the commentariat is acting like this is normal and proper.
p.s. I think the 50 years detail is because originally the law was a governor’s executive order, and fearing a court challenge the legislature later codified it. But I don’t have the dates in front of me. I heard of this case recently on a ballot access podcast (eebil libertarians, gosh). Or maybe they are just rounding to the nearest half century.
Onerous? Having an ID is so difficult for some. At least those who pander to low expectations. Getting 5% is a difficult task? I’ve seen ballot resolutions with much higher numbers.
except perhaps Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Until she can develop the wisdom of her more diverse cohort and manage to answer the question, “What is a woman?” the citation of her lone exception will continue to serve as an indication of the rectitude of the majority.
So the Supreme Court full of red and blue members decided to keep out anyone who isn’t red or blue ?
I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
This is pretty much par for the course for ballot access laws. They people with a vested interested in not changing the system are the same people in charge of adjudicating the rules.
Of course I’m biased. Even though my state still has onerous ballot access requirements, we still have five to six qualified political parties. (Which is mostly irrelevant now with Top Two). Those parties weren’t all lefty parties either (libertarians are not lefties) and includes the American Independent Party (George Wallace’s segregration party). But they tend to be a placeholder for the Constitution Party (right wing conservatives, usually Birchers).
“This is the way we’ve always done it” is a suitable argument for a conservative but an unprincipled one for any claimed libertarian.
The question should be, “why is there any restriction at all?” and if the answer is that you need some hurdle to entry with explanation and criteria, and that hurdle should be the lowest that achieves the ends justified by the answer.
2% support would be disqualifying for the LP in Georgia.
A one hundred dollar filing fee (to pay for the state’s secretarial workers to update the ballot) and 1,000 signatures (to discourage the kooks) should suffice.
Afaik, Colorado is roughly that. 1000 or so sigs for federal/statewide; 500 for state leg; no filing fee (those clerks earn a salary not a commission)
That said – Colorado proves it ain’t ballot access that keeps big L’s from either electoral success or evangelizing the ideology.
How many libertarians are elected in local and statewide offices?
The Supreme Court is correct in not getting into state elections. The Constitution gives the state legislatures the power to make election laws. It does not give that power to courts. When governors, judges and election officials make or change election laws it is illegal. That is why the 2020 election is considered illegal in many counties and states. The Supreme Court is hearing a case this year that will confirm what the Constitution says and return the power of elections back to state legislatures. Under extraordinary circumstances Congress can intervene by legislating laws to keep state legislatures from becoming to extreme. The Voting Rights Act is an example.
For Presidential elections I’d agree the courts shouldn’t meddle – it’s explicitly up to state legislatures to set the procedures (assuming there’s no discrimination against voters for race, etc.).
For U. S. House elections, the people are specifically given the power to elect Representatives, subject to certain disqualifications (underage, not a citizen long enough, seditionist). So most adult citizens can run, and when the state prints up a ballot, it should be an honest ballot, with none of the qualified candidates excluded based on their viewpoint or unpopularity.
Sure, if they don’t pay their (nondiscriminatory) advertising fees, or if their candidacy comes after the ballots are printed, let candidates be kept off the ballot (and rely on the write-on process).
But let the voters, not government officials, decide who’s weird and unpopular. I don’t think the First Amendment allows a candidate to be denied advertising space (ballot access) based on popularity.
Congress can override state election laws with whatever laws it wants. That it says explicitly in the constitution. Of course the supreme court can simply ignore that half of the clause as it has done for other clauses.
One possible remedy would be for Georgia Libertarians to run in the primaries of the two other parties, take outrageous (i.e. libertarian) positions, and vow to keep “polluting” the images of the other parties until said parties change the petition requirements and allow the “kooks” to run in their own parties. I wonder how long Republicans would tolerate a candidate wearing a rubber boot on his head and advocating for legal heroin? Or a Dem wearing a Fidel Castro shirt and waving a hammer and sickle banner?
Except, if you look it up, it’s just as hard or harder to get into the primaries of those parties, except for the most local of offices.
It’s a shame Reason has lost all credibility on this topic for me, otherwise I might give a shit. But I don’t live in Georgia so whatever.
Another example why being Democrat shills makes you a poor advocate for libertarians when you try to be.
The rules to get on the ballot should be exactly the same for every party. If there are not multiple third parties on the ballot then the process is broken.
The rules are exactly the same for both. They have to have a certain number of people who demonstrate that they are interested in their party. Your argument confuses equality with equity. Much like arguing that the lack of white people in the NBA indicates a flaw in the rules of basketball.
They are NOT exactly the same. These are barrier to entry laws, and do not apply to those parties ALREADY on the ballot.
Maybe the Libertarian Party should stop being run by losers and crazies so it can actually attract votes, not just protest votes?
As we see the Democrats try to make us a one party system, why would the courts help to make us a three party system?
the law seems reasonable to me. the actual fact is that 3rd parties are only relevant to the extent that they cause democrats to be elected. in the 2020 election it is very likely that the libertarian presidential candidate caused brandon to be elected. the libertarian ideals and ideas are great and we should work to further them, but doing so by way of a 3rd party is just foolish. we should work through the republican party to push libertarian ideas. in all cases a vote for the libertarian is actually a vote for the democrat. so you can feel good about yourself for voting libertarian but you’re vote is actually destructive.
here’s a recent piece that is very good: https://amgreatness.com/2022/09/27/will-libertarian-candidates-again-deny-gop-the-u-s-senate/
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [rea-06] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/