Does the Constitution Provide More Ballot Access Protection for Presidential Elections Than for U.S. House Elections?

Both the U.S. Constitution and The Federalist Papers suggest that voters ought to have more freedom to vote for the candidate of their choice for the U.S. House of Representatives than they do for the President or the U.S. Senate. Yet, strangely, for the last thirty-three years, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled that the Constitution gives voters more freedom to vote for the candidate of their choice in presidential elections than in congressional elections. Also, state legislatures, which have been writing ballot access laws since 1888, have passed laws that make it easier for minor-party and independent candidates to get on the ballot for President than for the U.S. House. As a result, voters in virtually every state invariably have far more choices on their general election ballots for the President than they do for the House. This Article argues that the right of a voter to vote for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican for the House is just as important as a voter’s right to do so for President, and that courts should grant more ballot access protection to minor-party and independent candidates for the House

An Analysis of the 2004 Nader Ballot Access Federal Court Cases

The article begins by stating that voters ability to vote for minor party candidates for presidential elections have generally been protected by federal courts as long as they have gotten some media exposure, and Ralph Nader, after not having received this protection attempted to file for injunctions in federal courts. It then goes through Naders claims and suits, including against a discriminatory number of signatures, whether out of state circulators may work, his North Carolina and Ohio write-in lawsuits. The articles conclusion is that federal courts did a poor job in deciding whether to grant Nader injunctive relief and how their decisions go against the essence of a democratic society which should be allowed to vote for whomever they want

How States Can Avoid Overcrowded Ballots but Still Protect Voter Choice

Since the beginning of government-printed ballots for federal and state offices in 1889, state legislatures have been wrestling with the problem of how many signatures should be required for independent candidates and new political parties to get on the ballot. Laws on this subject are very volatile; there is not a single instance in United States history in which applicable state laws were the same for two consecutive presidential elections. The volatility increased in 1968, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that overly strict ballot access laws for new parties and independent candidates violatetheU.S.Constitution. Sincethen,every state has been sued by minor party or independent candidates, or both, over whether its laws are too stringent. All fifty states and the District of Columbia have lost at least one lawsuit on this subject. Despite over fifty years of federal litigation and over 120 years of state court constitutional litigation, there are few resources available to help legislators and judges know how to set the number of signatures. On the one hand, the number of signatures should be high enough to avoid overcrowded ballots. On the other hand, if the requirements are too strict, voting rights are injured. When a candidate or a party is kept off the ballot, individuals who desire to vote for that candidate or party are injured. As the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore, “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” In states where voter registration forms ask the applicant to choose a party, 2 percent of all U.S. voters are members of political parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. The Constitution protects U.S. voters’ right to vote, and one can logically assume that U.S. voters want to vote for candidates representing their party. However, restrictive ballot access laws and overcrowded ballots may infringe upon the constitutionally protected right to vote

Ballot Format: Must Candidates Be Treated Equally

This article\u27s purpose is to explore and discuss a major inequality currently plaguing the realm of ballot format-the non-uniformed partisan labeling of election ballots. This will be accomplished by answering the following question: if a ballot lists partisan labels for some candidates must it list similar labels for all? This article endorses the idea that an election ballot should be fairly constructed. Governments preparing a voting ballot so its design does not significantly disadvantage any class of listed candidates seems perfectly reasonable. Despite this seemingly logical approach, some state laws provide that certain classes of candidates are entitled to preferential treatment. Moreover, when these laws are challenged, courts have responded haphazardly. Rosen v. Brown is an example of this unsettledness. In 1992, the Rosen court struck down an Ohio election law that allowed ballots to contain partisan labels for candidates who won a partisan primary, but not for those who qualified for the general election via petitions. Disregarding the Sixth Circuit Court\u27s ruling, the Ohio legislature re-enacted section 3505.03 of the Ohio Revised Code without adopting the court\u27s modifications. Adding to the confusion, Ohio\u27s election officials have interpreted Rosen narrowly and discouraged any public awareness of the ruling. To round out this discussion, this article will discuss 1) Ohio\u27s status as one of the few states that has been faced with this issue; 2) the consequences of Ohio\u27s restrictive policy; and 3) the outlook for change

Electoral officials can do little to combat information which undermines elections

As the 2020 presidential election approaches, there is growing concern over disinformation about the electoral process which may work to undermine the legitimacy of the election’s outcome. In new research, Brian Calfano, Richard Harknett, Gregory Winger, and Jelena Vicic surveyed nearly 9,000 Americans to determine the effect of messaging from Secretaries of State to counter disinformation. They find that attempts to correct disinformation by Secretaries of State about elections are generally ineffective, regardless of whether someone is a Republican or Democratic voter

Reporting government reactions to claims of electoral fraud can help maintain public trust in the media.

The 2020 US Presidential election campaigns have raised questions about the media and its credibility among US citizens. While many view the media as an important part of democracy, there is also an awareness of its role in furthering political divisions. Brian Calfano, Richard Harknett, Gregory Winger and Jelena Vicic examine the crucial relationship between the government and the media, and its broader implications for restoring faith in election coverage