Massachusetts Supreme Court Says Stand-ins Are Not Allowed for Unqualified Parties or Independent Candidates

On June 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion in Libertarian Association of Massachusetts v Secretary of the Commonwealth, 2011-348. The unanimous ruling says that Massachusetts law does not permit an unqualified party, or an independent candidate, to engage in substitution. If a candidate for president, or vice-president, or even presidential elector, who was named on the petition, dies or withdraws, the petition is invalid and the proponents must start all over. If the death or withdrawal is after the deadline for the petition to be submitted, there is no remedy.

The decision says that the law “does not impose a significant burden.” It says the ability of a qualified party to make a late decision about who its presidential and vice-presidential nominees are is a “privilege” of being a qualified party. Footnote 28 says unqualified parties who fail to gain ballot access are always free to carry on a write-in campaign in November.

Footnote 9 admits that in the past, the Massachusetts Secretary of State let the U.S. Taxpayers Party substitute a new nominee in 1996, and let the Reform nominee do this in 2000. The footnote does not mention that the Secretary of State also let John B. Anderson substitute a new nominee for vice-president in 1980, and let Ralph Nader do so in 2004. In any event, it appears that what the Secretary of State did that was helpful in those past elections cannot happen again. The decision says the only recourse is for the group or independent candidate to start an entire new petition, if the original petition’s nominee for President or Vice-President changes while the first petition is underway.

If Americans Elect were still involved in running a presidential nominee this year, this decision would be utterly hurtful to Americans Elect.

Now that unqualified parties in Massachusetts have lost this case, it may be possible for unqualified parties to successfully challenge the only method by which unqualified parties can become qualified parties in advance of any particular election. That procedure requires the group to persuade voters equal to 1% of the registration to register into that party, no later than November of the year before the election. By every precedent, a deadline that early is unconstitutional.

5 comments

  1. Demo Rep · · Reply

    One more junk opinion with the now standard *not significant* magic words.

    Is the *equal* in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 absolutely totally DEAD ???

    Was the horrific Civil War fought to have EVIL minority rule gerrymander robot party hack monsters be in control in the U.S.A. forever (a very LONG time) ???

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  2. From:
    Roseanne Barr ?@TheRealRoseanne

    “Coalition gov with libertarians greens third parties!”

  3. Casual Bystander · · Reply

    Headlines we’d like to see: “BAN bans wackos!”

  4. o rly? · · Reply

    @3 yep

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: