The Charleston Gazette has published CCD General Council Oliver Hall’s op-ed supporting the equal right of all qualified candidates to run for public office, and defending minor party and independent candidates against the “spoiler” charge.
Blog
-
NYT runs letter on monopolization of the political process
The New York Times has published Oliver Hall’s letter to the editor on the state-by-state monopolization of the political process.
-
WaPo publishes CCD legal counsel’s letter
The Washington Post has published Oliver Hall’s letter to the editor on improving America’s elections.
-
SCOTUSblog features CCD’s Petition for Certiorari in North Dakota case
SCOTUSblog selected CCD’s petition for certiorari in Libertarian Party of North Dakota v. Jaeger as its petition of the day. See the SCOTUSblog post.
-
CCD Director comments on artificially restricted voter choice
How far are we from “a Soviet-style system where the competition is pruned such that the election merely ratifies the controlling party’s choice,” CCD director Theresa Amato asks in an op-ed for CNN. Ballot access restrictions preventing Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum from appearing on Virginia’s Republican primary election ballot are just the latest evidence of an “archaic electoral process that artificially restricts our ballot choices,” Amato writes.
-
Article investigating PA unconstitutional ballot access hurdles draws on Nader and CCD legal counsel
Philadelphia Weekly has this investigative piece on Pennsylvania’s unconstitutional practice of requiring candidates to pay litigation costs following challenges to their nomination petitions. The piece quotes an open letter consumer advocate and former independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader wrote to Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille, which states, “The Jim Crow era ended in large part because the United States Supreme Court struck down such financial burdens in a series of landmark civil rights cases protecting candidate and voter rights. As the Supreme Court of the United States observed more than 40 years ago, in striking down Virginia’s poll tax, ‘It has long been established that a state may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.’” CCD legal counsel Oliver Hall is also quoted. Read the full piece here.
-
CCD Legal Counsel responds to AG Holder’s comments on voter suppression
Washington Post runs Oliver Hall’s letter to the editor in response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s call for political parties not “to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success,” and to focus instead on winning elections “by appealing to more voters.”
-
CCD Director writes on importance of range of viewpoints in the democratic process
CCD director Theresa Amato writes in the Washington Post that Rep. Michele Bachman’s performance in the first Republican debate of the 2012 primary season “offers tangible evidence of the importance of an open debate that lets voters hear from a wide field of candidates with a genuine variety of viewpoints, without self-appointed gatekeepers—be they media hosts or the Commission on Presidential Debates—who artificially narrow debate participation.” Read the story here.
-
CCD legal counsel to argue before 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
On May 11, CCD legal counsel Oliver Hall will argue before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Libertarian Party of North Dakota, in the Libertarians’ case challenging the North Dakota law that prevents the winners of the Libertarian Party primary from appearing on the ballot unless they receive a minimum number of votes equal, in some cases, to as much as 15 percent of the entire vote cast.
-
CCD files joint amicus brief in SCOTUS’ Georgia ballot access case
CCD, the Coalition for Free and Open Elections, and Free & Equal file amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court, in support of the petition for certiorari filed by Faye Coffield, an independent candidate for U.S. House who was denied access to Georgia’s 2008 general election ballot. No minor party or independent candidate for U.S. House has successfully petitioned to access Georgia’s ballot since the state increased its requirements in 1964 – a period of 46 years. The case is Coffield v. Kemp, No. 10-596. The district court and the Federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit summarily dismissed Coffield’s challenge to Georgia’s 5 ballot access requirements, on the ground that the Supreme Court upheld them in Jenness v. Fortson, which was decided in 1971. In Jenness, however, the Court relied on the fact that minor party candidates had been able to access Georgia’s ballot in recent elections. The 11th Circuit discounted the fact that no minor party or independent candidate for U.S. House has done so since then on the ground that Coffield did not allege how many have tried. The purpose of CCD’s amicus brief is to provide the Court with facts confirming that many candidates have tried but failed to comply with Georgia’s petitioning requirements in the 46 years since Jenness was decided. This is significant because the Court has repeatedly concluded that courts reviewing the constitutionality of ballot access laws must consider whether or not candidates are able to comply with them.