U.S. District Court in Alabama Refuses to Enjoin March Petition Deadline for Newly-Qualifying Parties

On July 19, U.S. District Court Judge W. Keith Watkins refused to enjoin Alabama’s March petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. The case is Stein v Chapman, Middle District, 2:12-cv-42. His 19-page opinion says that the three plaintiff parties, the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties, failed to show that the March deadline injured them.

The opinion acknowledges the U.S. Supreme Court precedent Anderson v Celebrezze, which struck down Ohio’s March 20 deadline for independent presidential candidates. It also acknowledges the 11th circuit opinion New Alliance Party v Hand, which struck down Alabama’s April petition deadline in 1991, at a time when Alabama only required signatures of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, instead of the 3% currently required. But it says those cases submitted much more evidence about the harm done by the early deadlines. That is a peculiar conclusion. The point of precedent in law is that once a law has been declared unconstitutional, if a state continues to enforce that law (or if the state repeals the law but later restores it), plaintiffs in a new lawsuit should not be required to build an evidentiary record from scratch; the prior precedent is supposed to control.

The opinion mentions Bergland v Harris, which says that states have less interest in keeping presidential candidates off their ballot than in keeping other candidates off the ballot. But the opinion does not discuss Bergland v Harris; there is just a sentence acknowledging that the judge is aware of the decision.

The case is still alive, and a decision about declaratory relief is months away, and won’t effect the 2012 election in Alabama.


  1. Demo Rep · · Reply

    Separate is NOT equal.

    Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
    What Prez appointed the judge ???

    How often has the judge been reversed on appeal ???

  2. Judge Watkins is an appointee of President George W. Bush.

  3. My reccomendation to minor parties in states that have unreasonable ballot access laws is this: If it is possible to petition for ballot access in one district or county in order to place a candidate or candidates on the ballot in that district or county, then I would do that, so at least your party is running somebody for something.

    So if statewide ballot access is too difficult, shoot for ballot access in one district or county. If people see you doing that you are likely to gain more supporters, and it will help build your party for future elections.

  4. Demo Rep · · Reply

    # 4 Some States get away with requiring that STATEWIDE parties exist before any local stuff can happen.

  5. “Demo Rep Says:
    July 20th, 2012 at 10:04 am

    # 4 Some States get away with requiring that STATEWIDE parties exist before any local stuff can happen.”

    I know this, but some states do not have this requirement, like Alabama. Getting on the ballot statewide is very difficult for minor parties, but they could get on the ballot in one district or county, so they ought to at least do that if they can’t get on statewide.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: