Federal appeals panel eases N.Y. ballot-access requirements
By The Associated Press
11.14.00
Printer-friendly page
NEW YORK — A federal appeals panel, demonstrating the authority
the federal courts can carry over state election laws, has issued a ruling that
may make it easier for minor party candidates in New York to get on
ballots.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Manhattan said in a ruling Nov. 9 that witnesses to signatures collected to
gain entry onto ballots do not have to live in the same district where they
collect signatures.
The ruling reversed a lower court decision in Brooklyn that had thrown
out a lawsuit brought by those who helped the 1999 Staten Island campaign of
John Sallazo, a registered member of the Independence Party of New York.
Sallazo had sought the party's nomination for the New York City
council seat from the 50th Council District.
To get on the ballot, he needed to collect valid signatures from at
least 5%, or 38, of the 760 registered party members within the district.
Plaintiff Anita Lerman, a resident of the 49th Council District, had
witnessed 58 signatures that were ruled invalid by the city Board of Elections
because Lerman was not from the district.
In a federal lawsuit, Lerman and others challenged the ruling,
alleging that the witness residence requirement violated the First Amendment
and the 14th Amendment by permitting only district residents to witness
signatures.
The lawsuit was tossed out by a lower court judge on Sept. 3, 1999,
and the federal appeals court denied a request for an expedited consideration
of the case. As a result, the election occurred without Sallazo's name on
the ballot.
In its ruling the appeals panel concluded that the residency
requirement for witnesses was unconstitutional.
"When state election laws subject speech, association or the
right to vote to severe restrictions, the regulation must be narrowly drawn to
advance a state interest of compelling importance," the appeals panel
wrote.
The court called the petition circulation activity "core
political speech" that required close scrutiny.
The appeals court said the residence requirement "dramatically
reduced" the number of potential petition circulators available to
advance Sallazo's political message.
"While candidates who are well-financed or favored by their
party's leadership might have ready access to the resources necessary to
ensure that they qualify to appear on the ballot, many candidates —
especially those challenging their party's leadership — do
not," it said.
Lorna Goodman, a spokeswoman for the city law office that argued the
case, said the ruling was interesting as an example of the authority the
federal courts can carry over local election laws, an issue with added
relevance as courts consider issues in Florida affecting the presidential
election.
Other lawyers for the city, state and the plaintiffs in the case did
not immediately return telephone calls for comment.
Related
Court blocks system used to place candidates on primary ballot
Federal judge says Connecticut law requiring challengers to party nominees to get support from at least 15% of their district delegates is likely unconstitutional.
07.24.02
Constitution Party challenges Wisconsin election regulation
Lawsuit says statute prohibiting certain people from circulating nominating petitions for political candidates violates free speech.
09.14.02
Federal court orders West Virginia to add Nader to presidential ballot
Green Party nominee had argued that state's law was unconstitutional because it hindered third-party candidates seeking spot on ballot.
09.18.00
Green Party, ACLU challenge Michigan ballot restrictions
Election law violates the First Amendment by unconstitutionally discriminating against new parties, says civil rights group.
08.10.98
