Blog

August 5, 2022 (Raleigh, NC) — United States District Judge James C. Dever III today issued an order directing the North Carolina State Board of Elections (“NCSBE”) to certify the North Carolina Green Party (“NCGP”) as a qualified party in North Carolina and to place its candidates, Matthew Hoh for United States Senate and Michael Trudeau for State Senate District 16, on North Carolina’s November 8th general election ballot.

CCD filed suit against NCSBE on behalf of NCGP, its candidates and several supporters on July 14, 2022, after NCSBE voted on party lines not to certify NCGP as a qualified political party even though it had complied with all applicable requirements under North Carolina law. The three Democratic members of NCSBE voted against certification while the two Republicans voted for certification.

To qualify as a new party, NCGP was required to submit nomination petitions signed by at least 13,865 qualified voters to county boards of elections for validation. NCGP submitted petitions signed by 22,530 North Carolina voters. The county boards of elections validated 16,117 signatures — 2,252 more valid signatures than the requirement.

After NCGP timely submitted its validated signatures to NCSBE, however, NCSBE on June 30, 2022 voted 3-2 not to certify the party. The Democratic members voting against certification did not claim that NCGP failed to fulfill any requirement under North Carolina law, nor did they cite any legal authority for their refusal to certify NCGP. Instead, NCSBE Chair Damon Circosta asserted that NCSBE staff needed additional time to investigate alleged “irregularities” in NCGP’s petitions. NCSBE never provided NCGP with any evidence of the alleged irregularities, nor did it give NCGP any opportunity to defend itself against the allegations.

NCGP’s two-count Complaint asserts that NCSBE’s failure to certify NCGP despite its timely compliance with all applicable requirements under North Carolina law violates the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights and their right to Due Process of law.

In his order (page 21), Judge Dever found that NCSBE had adopted “completely contradictory positions” with respect to NCGP’s request for relief and that its conduct “reflects bad faith.”

While NCSBE was considering whether to certify NCGP’s petitions, unidentified operatives affiliated with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (“DSCC”) and the North Carolina Democratic Party (“NCDP”) engaged in a widespread effort to convince NCGP petition signers to remove their names from NCGP’s petitions. Petition signers received repeated text messages, phone calls and even visits to their homes from strangers asking them to remove their names from the petitions.

The Democratic operatives stated that they were asking NCGP petition signers to remove their names from the NCGP petitions because NCGP “takes votes” from Democrats.

In some instances, which NCGP recorded as evidence, the Democratic operatives falsely identified themselves as representatives of NCGP itself.

The Elias Law Group, which frequently represents the DSCC, then filed several complaints with NCSBE, which alleged “fraud” in NCGP’s petitions.

Meanwhile, a team of NCSBE “investigators” began contacting NCGP petition signers and petition circulators to conduct lengthy interviews in which they asked about every aspect of NCGP’s petition drive. The investigators did not disclose any factual basis for their inquiries. Nonetheless, NCGP directed its petition signers and circulators to cooperate with the investigators and provide all requested information.

As Republican NCSBE member Tommy Tucker observed, NCSBE’s investigation of petition signatures that had been validated by county boards of elections was unprecedented. He noted that NCSBE’s investigators “would scare a lot of people” and convince them to remove their names from NCGP’s petitions.

From June 1, 2022, when NCGP submitted its validated petitions to NCSBE, until August 5, 2022, when Judge Dever entered his order, it has remained undisputed that NCGP submitted far more valid signatures than required under North Carolina law and that it had complied with all other applicable requirements.

The DSCC and the NCDP, represented by the Elias Law Group, nevertheless intervened in NCGP’s lawsuit in an effort to block NCSBE from certifying NCGP as a party.

The case, North Carolina Green Party v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, No. 5:22-cv-00276-D-BM (E.D. N.C.), remains pending in the federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

UPDATE: On August 8, 2022, the DSCC and NCDP appealed Judge Dever’s order to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal.

Judge Dever denied the DSCC’s and NCDP’s motion in an order entered on August 10, 2022. He concluded that the intervenors “do not appear in this court with clean hands.” Judge Dever explained, “it is plain for anyone who looks to see that the intervenors simply do not want to give voters the option to vote for the two Green Party candidates because the intervenors fear that some voters will vote for the two Green Party candidates instead of the Democratic candidates.”

UPDATE: On August 30, 2022, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the DSCC’s and NCDP’s appeal, effectively ensuring that NCGP will remain certified as a party and that its candidates will appear on North Carolina’s November 8, 2022 general election ballot.

Suppose you wanted to run for office, but you weren’t exactly thrilled with the Republican or Democratic parties.

Maybe, like Illinois emergency room doctor David Gill, you wanted to promote a single payer healthcare system, among other issues the major parties won’t touch.

So you decided to run for Congress as an Independent.

Now suppose you found out that Illinois has some of the most restrictive ballot access requirements for Independent candidates for U.S. House in the entire nation.

Specifically: Dr. Gill needed to collect 10,754 valid signatures from qualified voters in his district in just 90 days.

For perspective, that’s more than 10 times the median requirement imposed by every other state, and more than three times the average requirement of all states nationwide. And Georgia, the only state that imposes a higher requirement, allows candidates six months to collect their signatures — twice as long as Illinois.

But wait, there’s more: No Independent candidate for U.S. House has overcome Illinois’s signature requirements since 1974, and the candidate who did so that year had an unlimited time to do it, because the 90-day petitioning period wasn’t enacted yet.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, no Independent candidate for U.S. House has qualified since 1964.

Do those sound like reasonable requirements for Independent candidates seeking to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives — known as the “People’s House” — here in the Land of the Free?

Dr. Gill and his team collected more than 11,000 total signatures, but they were challenged,

After the challenge, he was left with 8,491 valid signatures — not enough to qualify.

More perspective: even after the challenge, Dr. Gill collected more valid signatures than 99.9 percent of all candidates who ran for U.S. House in more than 25,000 races nationwide since states began regulating ballot access in 1890.

The Supreme Court has held that ballot access restrictions are likely unconstitutional if “reasonably diligent” candidates are unable to comply with them. And they are certainly unconstitutional if they “operate to freeze the political status quo.”

Illinois’s requirements fail both tests. (So do Georgia’s.)

Dr. Gill filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of Illinois’s requirements. The District Court ruled against him, without holding a hearing, but CCD took up his appeal and won in the Seventh Circuit.

So the case was sent back to the District Court. There, the case languished for more than a year until the District Court ruled against Dr. Gill again — once again, without holding a hearing.

The District Court concluded that Dr. Gill could have qualified if he had just hired a few more petition circulators.

Maybe so — that’s true in every case — but if collecting more valid signatures than 99.9 percent of all U.S. House candidates in American history isn’t “reasonably diligent,” what is?

The District Court didn’t say.

CCD is representing Dr. Gill in his second appeal to the Seventh Circuit, and we just filed our opening brief.

It’s worth a read if you’re interested in finding out what candidates seeking to expand voter choice in the Land of the Free are up against in states like Illinois, Georgia and elsewhere.

CCD is representing Dr. Gill and his co-plaintiffs pro bono. To support CCD’s work, please consider making a contribution. CCD is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and all contributions are tax-deductible.

# # #

CCD founder Oliver Hall has published “When the Ballots Are Obstructed — Sky-High Signature Requirements Hamper Independent Candidates” in the pilot issue of the print-only(!) Capitol Hill Citizen.

The article explores the age-old problem of foxes guarding the henhouse — in this case, Republicans and Democrats colluding to enact anti-competitive ballot access requirements that guarantee their nominees automatic access to state ballots at taxpayer expense while making it practically impossible for potential competitors to run for public office.

Several of CCD’s recent court victories are recounted and analyzed as examples of the major parties’ political capture of our democratic processes.

The article raises the question: “[W]hy should states – or more to the point, the Democrats and Republicans who control state legislatures – be permitted to erect near-impossible barriers against potential competitors?”

The answer is they shouldn’t.

Order copies of the print-only Capitol Hill Citizen, published by Ralph Nader and edited by Corporate Crime Reporter’s Russell Mokhiber, here.

March 17, 2022 – On behalf of a coalition of minor political parties, independent candidates and their voter-supporters, CCD today filed a case challenging the constitutionality of Indiana Election Code provisions that restrict access to the ballot for minor parties and independent candidates. The case alleges that Indiana denies voters the right to cast their votes effectively by guaranteeing ballot access to the two major parties — Republicans and Democrats — at taxpayer expense while imposing cost-prohibitive requirements on their potential competitors.

“Indiana’s ballot access laws are among the most restrictive in the nation,” said CCD founder and general counsel Oliver Hall. “No new minor party or independent candidate for statewide office has been able to qualify for Indiana’s ballot in more than 20 years — not since presidential independent Patrick Buchanan did in 2000.”

Under Indiana law, major party nominees appear on the ballot automatically once they are selected by means of taxpayer-funded primary elections. Minor parties and statewide independents, by contrast, must submit nomination petitions signed by voters equal in number to 2 percent of the last vote for Secretary of State — or 44,935 signatures in 2022. Independents for non-statewide offices must submit petitions signed by voters equal in number to two percent of the last vote for Secretary of State in their district.

But since there’s no way to validate voters’ signatures when they sign nomination petitions, minor parties and independents must collect approximately 50 percent more than the requirement, to ensure they have enough valid signatures. That means a statewide petition must have approximately 67,000 signatures to ensure a likelihood of success.

According to the Complaint, Indiana has not updated or improved the procedures by which minor parties and independents must demonstrate the requisite voter support in the 133 years since Indiana first began regulating ballot access: they still must collect signatures in person, by hand, on paper nomination petitions. This process is inherently laborious, time-consuming and, as the number of signatures required has increased, the cost of completing a statewide petition drive has skyrocketed.

“We intend to prove that statewide petition drives in Indiana now cost $465,000 – $565,000,” Hall said. “That violates landmark Supreme Court decisions holding that states may not condition participation in their electoral processes on the ability of voters, candidates or parties to pay.”

The Plaintiffs in the case are the Indiana Green Party, the Libertarian Party of Indiana, John Shearer, George Wolfe, David Wetterer, A.B. Brand, Evan McMahon, Mark Rutherford, Andrew Horning, Ken Tucker and Adam Muehlhausen.

The Plaintiffs assert claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments for the violation of their right to cast their votes effectively, to speak and associate for political purposes, and to the equal protection of law. They seek a judgment declaring Indiana’s statutory scheme unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting the Defendant, Indiana Secretary of State Holli Sullivan, from enforcing the challenged provisions.

The case is captioned Indiana Green Party, et al. v. Sullivan, No. 1:2-cv-00518 (SDIN). It was filed in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and has been assigned to Judge James R. Sweeney II.

CCD filed this case pro bono, with Advisory Board members Mark R. Brown and William P. Tedards, Jr. representing the Plaintiffs as co-counsel with Mr. Hall. To support CCD’s work, please consider making a contribution. CCD is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and all contributions are tax-deductible.

# # #

On February 25, 2021, CCD sent Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds this letter urging her not to sign HF590 and SF413 into law on the ground that the legislation is unconstitutional under long-settled Supreme Court precedent establishing the “one person, one vote” principle.

The legislation has passed both the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate, and news media reports indicate that Governor Reynolds intends to sign it.

If enacted, the legislation will impose several changes to Iowa election law that will restrict voters’ ability to participate, including by shortening the early voting period, closing polling places earlier and requiring that absentee ballots be received by elections officials on or before election day. As such, it is part of a spate of legislation introduced following the 2020 general election that appears to serve no legitimate purpose and will only make it harder or impossible for many voters to participate — especially voters from disadvantaged groups. We oppose such barriers to participation on principle: states should work to make it easier, not harder, to vote.

The aspect of the legislation that is clearly unconstitutional, however, pertains to candidates of “nonparty political organizations” who seek access to Iowa’s general election ballot. If enacted, the legislation will require that such candidates obtain nomination petition signatures from a specified number of voters who reside in a specified number of counties. The Supreme Court held such county-based distribution requirements unconstitutional in 1969. See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 US 814 (1969). Because counties vary greatly by population, the Court concluded that requiring the same level of support from different counties violates the one person, one vote principle established by its prior voting rights cases. Since then, federal courts have consistently held county-based distribution requirements unconstitutional.

We hope Governor Reynolds reconsiders her reported support for Iowa’s unconstitutional new legislation. After all, we have already won one legal challenge to county-based distribution requirements (in Pennsylvania). See Constitution Party of Pa. v. Cortes, 877 F.3d 480 (3rd Cir. 2017). Further litigation on this issue should not be necessary.

In case you missed it — entrepreneur Mark Cuban recently joined Sway, Kara Swisher’s New York Times podcast, for a wide-ranging discussion on a number of issues including his support for our work to expand and protect voter choice in American elections.

Check it out here. Cuban discusses CCD’s work at around 31:58.

In partnership with the outstanding teams at the Northwestern Supreme Court Practicum and Sidley Austin LLP, and with CCD Advisory Board member Mark Brown as lead counsel, CCD has filed this petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Thompson v. DeWine, which held that Ohio’s strict enforcement of its in-person petitioning requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic did not violate the First Amendment rights of citizens who seek to place initiatives on the ballot.

Although the Supreme Court rarely grants petitions for review, the odds that this petition will be granted are significantly better. As the petition states, “Recently, Chief Justice Roberts confirmed that ‘the Court is reasonably likely to grant certiorari to resolve [this split] on an important issue of election administration.’” Little v. Reclaim Idaho, 140 S. Ct. 2616, 2616 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring).

The “split” refers to the conflicting decisions that courts of appeals have entered in cases concerning First Amendment protection for citizens who seek to place initiatives on state ballots. Some circuits hold that the First Amendment protects such activity and requires courts to apply “strict scrutiny” to laws that burden citizens’ right to place initiatives on the ballot; some circuits hold that the First Amendment applies, but that courts should apply a more deferential level of review; and some circuits hold that the First Amendment does not apply at all. Such a split is one of the most important factors the Supreme Court considers when deciding whether to grant a petition for review.

In Thompson, the District Court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, finding that Ohio’s strict enforcement of its in-person petitioning requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The Sixth Circuit, however, stayed the injunction and ultimately reversed the District Court’s decision. It held that the First Amendment applies, but that Ohio’s strict enforcement of its petitioning laws during the pandemic did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights — notwithstanding the fact that it was effectively illegal to obtain petition signatures during much of the petitioning period due to Ohio’s shutdown orders, and that it was and continues to be unsafe to do so due to the ongoing pandemic.

We are grateful for the exceptional work our pro bono partners at the Northwestern Supreme Court Practicum, Sidley Austin LLP and lead counsel Mark Brown did to prepare this case.

CCD founder and legal counsel Oliver Hall is pleased to join former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and others for the Citizen Advocacy Center’s forum, A Path to Direct Democracy, tonight at 7:30 Eastern.

We’ll be discussing the challenges that proponents of initiatives and referenda faced in the 2020 election cycle, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, legal developments relating to ballot access and the prospects for reform, among other topics.

For more information and to register visit the Citizen Advocacy Center.

On August 20, 2020 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order granting relief from petitioning requirements for independent and minor party candidates in Illinois due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision paves the way for a more competitive 2020 general election in Illinois, as voters will be free to cast their votes for independents, Greens and Libertarians — not just Republicans and Democrats. See the background on this case here and here.

Even with the relief the federal courts granted in this case, Illinois’ strict ballot access requirements severely limit voter choice. As we argued in a supplemental filing, even if every independent and minor party party candidate who filed nomination petitions in 2020 survives challenges against them, Illinois’ state legislative races will have, on average, only 1.7 candidates per race. Congressional races will have, on average, only 2.3 candidates per race, and no race for the U.S. House will have more than 3 candidates.

That is why our ongoing litigation to challenge the constitutionality of restrictive ballot access laws in Illinois and nationwide is so important. For our democracy to function, elections must present voters with real choices — not preordained outcomes. Far too often the electoral process fails to perform this basic role. Today’s decision helps remedy that fundamental system failure and restore power to the people.

The federal district court for the district of Maryland has entered an order reducing Maryland’s petitioning requirements for the Green Party of Maryland and the Libertarian Party of Maryland by 50 percent — from 10,000 to 5,000 signatures — as a result of a lawsuit CCD filed in partnership with pro bono counsel H. Mark Stichel of the law firm Astrachan Gunst Thomas.

Pursuant to the court’s order, entered on June 19, 2020, the Green and Libertarian parties are also authorized to collect petition signatures electronically, via an online platform the parties developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is the second case in which CCD has won petitioning relief for minor parties and independent candidates due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first case was in Illinois, where a federal court on April 23, 2020 entered an order reducing Illinois’ signature requirements, extending its filing deadline, and authorizing electronic petitioning procedures, among other relief.