Thanks to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for this post.

On Feb. 10th, the Second Circut Refused to Enjoin the New, Stricter definition of a Political Party, for a Ballot Line, Passed by the New York Legislature in 2020. The Case is SAM Party v Cuomo, 20-3047.

The Old Law defined a Party for a Ballot Line that Polled 50,000 Votes for Govenor, that gave the Party Four years of Ballot Access.

The New Law requires a Party to Poll 130,000 or 2% of the Vote, whichever is Larger, for President and Governor, giving a Party Two years of Ballot Access. Because of the New Law, these Parties: Green, Independence, Libertarian, and SAM, Parties Lost their Ballot Access.

The Decision is by Judge Michael H. Park, a Trump Appointee, and also Signed Judge Steven J. Menashi, also a Trump Appointee. The Judges said that the Justification for Removing Four Paties from the Ballot are:

1. To Improve the Chances that the Winner of the Election will have received a Majority of the Vote.

2. To Save Money, because the State now has Public Funding for Candidates for State Office, although it dosen't start until 2024.

But Richard says: both justifications are utterly without merit. Point One could be solved if the state used ranked choice voting. Point Two is easily rebutted by the existence of another Second Circuit opinion, Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, that says if a state has public funding, it is free to confine the public funding to parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last election, or which submit a petition of 20% of the voters.

The Decision Falsely Claims that Removing a Party's Qualified Status is Not a Severe Burden, because the Nomiees can use the Independent Petition. But the Decision ignores the fact that New York is One of only Seven States in which an Unqualified Party cannot Regain its Status as a Qualified Party in Advance of any particular Election. Because New York has No such Procedure, Nominees of Unqualified Parties must use the Independent Candident Procedure, which means a Separate Petition for each U.S. House Candidate, plus a Petition for the Statewide Nominees, plus still more Positions for Local Election. That could end up to a Total of 550,500 Signatures, and then add Judicial Races.

All these Petitions must be completed within Six Weeks, and are due in May of the Election year. The Decision does Not mention that. The Decision claims that other Courts have Upheld similar Definitions of a Qualified Party, All the Precedents mentioned are from States that do have a Procedure for a Group to become a Qualified Party in Advance of an Election.

The Decision says that the State has No Choice but to include the Presidental Vote if it wants to have a Test every Two years, because in some Presidential years, there is No other
Statewide Office on the Ballot. But the Decision ignores the fact that there are other Methods to measure the Viability of a Party, besides Vote Totals. Twelve States use Registration Data to help determine if a Party should be Qualified. And some States simply keep a Parrty on the Ballot if it runs a certain number of Candidates.

The Decision claims that the 2% Vote Test is Average for States, without noting that it is far more Difficult for a Minor Party to Poll 2% for President than it is for less important Statewide Office. There was Evidence in the Case about that, but the Judges did not seem to see it.

The Case is not Over. The Issue of Declaratory Relief is Not yet settled, and there will be a Trial in U.S. District Court.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker