[EL] How low (high) can you go?/Ballot access fees

Mon Nov 18 13:25:18 PST 2013

For some reason, I thought the candidate had to be the one (1) who 
gathers the signatures!
Is that the law anywhere?

On 11/18/2013 7:53 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>
> Of course, to me the signature option is often a rather bogus 
> alternative, because gathering signatures is often very costly. Nor is 
> it clear that the ability to gather signatures makes one more likely 
> to be a serious candidate than the ability to pay a filing fee. The 
> distinction between fees and signatures doesn't really hold up - 
> either can unduly limit candidate advancement to the ballot. In one of 
> my favorite passages from one of my early articles, "Judicial 
> Protection of Ballot Access Rights," 28 Harv. J. Legis. 167, 201, n. 
> 173 (1991), I wrote:
>
> In Storer, Justice White, writing for the Court, found that a 
> requirement of 325,000 signatures gathered in 24 days was not an 
> "impossible burden," because "1000 canvassers could perform the task 
> if each gathered 14 signers a day." 415 U.S. at 740. 
> <http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=208&db=780&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=0101390680&serialnum=1974127154&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=46BB841E&referenceposition=740&rs=WLW13.10> 
> Justice White repeated this type of arithmetic in American Party, 
> finding that 100 canvassers gathering four signatures a day for 55 
> days would meet the Texas requirement. 415 U.S. at 786. 
> <http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=208&db=780&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=0101390680&serialnum=1974127155&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=46BB841E&referenceposition=786&rs=WLW13.10> 
> Justice White's figures are not quite accurate because he did not 
> allow for the fact that guaranteeing enough good signatures usually 
> requires at least a twenty-five percent safety margin of "raw" 
> signatures. Accepting Justice White's logic, however, one might just 
> as well conclude that the statute challenged in Lubin posed no barrier 
> because 1000 panhandlers collecting just three cents per day could 
> obtain the necessary filing fee in 24 days; Bullock's $8,900 fee would 
> have required 100 panhandlers to collect $1.62 each per day over 55 days.
>
> /Bradley A. Smith/
>
> /Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault/
>
> /   Professor of Law/
>
> /Capital University Law School/
>
> /303 E. Broad St./
>
> /Columbus, OH 43215/
>
> /614.236.6317/
>
> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Brenda Wright [bwright at demos.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2013 10:33 AM
> *To:* Smith, Brad; Schultz, David A.; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] How low (high) can you go?/Ballot access fees
>
> Pennsylvania still had only option 1 until 2003, when the mandatory 
> fee was struck down in Belitskus v. Pizzingrilli
> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1410638.html
> I've wondered if there remain other laws like this on the books that 
> haven't been challenged.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, 
> Brad [BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 17, 2013 10:50 PM
> *To:* Schultz, David A.; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] How low (high) can you go?/Ballot access fees
>
> Option (1) was declared unconstitutional, Lubin v. Panish, 415 US 709;
>
> /Bradley A. Smith/
>
> /Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault/
>
> /   Professor of Law/
>
> /Capital University Law School/
>
> /303 E. Broad St./
>
> /Columbus, OH 43215/
>
> /614.236.6317/
>
> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Schultz, 
> David A. [dschultz at hamline.edu]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 17, 2013 7:47 PM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] How low (high) can you go?/Ballot access fees
>
> Hi all:
> What seems to be the threshold amount for a ballot access  fee to be 
> before it is declared unconstitutional?
>
> Two  scenarios:
>
> 1)  Fee only;  or
> 2)  Fee and with the alternative, signatures.
>
> In general most jurisdictions have option two, but I wonder how many 
> still have only option one.
>
> I will take answers on or off-line.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -- 
> David Schultz, Professor
> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
> Hamline University
> Department of Political Science
> 1536 Hewitt Ave
> MS B 1805
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
> 651.523.2858 (voice)
> 651.523.3170 (fax)
> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
> Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> -- 
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be 
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an 
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email 
> to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email 
> in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or 
> copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
> this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard 
> all copies.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131118/041c3c42/attachment.html>