First Posted: 3/16/2015
COLUMBUS (AP) — The political battleground state of Ohio did not violate the U.S. Constitution when it imposed new ballot access limits last year on minor political parties, a federal judge ruled Monday.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson’s ruling is the latest blow to challengers of a 2013 law that set stiffer criteria for minor political parties to qualify for Ohio’s ballot and maintain access to it.
The law was intended to replace earlier ballot access rules that were found unconstitutional in 2006. It established what qualifies as a political party and what percentage of the vote must be won to maintain that status.
The Libertarian Party of Ohio and their legal allies from the Green and Constitution parties argued the law imposed hurdles on third-party candidates already actively seeking to get on the ballot last year. They said it unfairly changed the rules amid campaign activities, including signature collection.
In ruling, Watson rejected a request for a pre-trial decision sought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had argued the law violated the First and 14th amendments. The judge decided the group failed to demonstrate that limiting access to primary ballots severely burdened minor parties without advancing “compelling state interests.”
“First, it is rational for the State of Ohio to limit minor parties’ participation in primary elections because minor party primaries are typically uncontested, voter turnout is low, and the additional costs of adding uncontested minor party candidates to a primary ballot is unwarranted,” the judge wrote.
He said the law’s petition requirements were also rational because they helped demonstrate that a minor party has “a significant modicum of support.”
Mark Brown, a lawyer for the Libertarians, said the party’s principal challenge — under Ohio’s state constitution — is still ongoing. It argues that the law effectively eliminated all minor-party candidates from Ohio’s 2014 primary ballots, denying a right the state constitution guarantees. He said although the group is disappointed in Monday’s outcome, they remain optimistic.
Without the opportunity for a primary, Ohio’s minor-party candidates have to collect about 30,000 signatures to get on the general election ballot rather than getting on automatically. They argued that they would also lose the fundraising and name recognition benefits of a spring primary.
In November’s election, the Green Party garnered the 2 percent of votes that are required under the challenged law to gain ballot access, though Libertarians who brought the suit did not. They and other critics had dubbed the law as the “John Kasich Re-Election Protection Act,” asserting it was designed to help the Republican governor fend off a tea party challenge to his 2014 re-election bid.
The legislation’s sponsor disputed the characterization, and Kasich said he didn’t request the measure. He was handily re-elected last fall.
The bill moved quickly through the GOP-dominated Legislature in 2013 as Ohio Republicans faced increased competition from tea party supporters who had threatened to back a third-party challenger to Kasich.
The current qualifications in Ohio law were deemed unconstitutional in 2006. Secretary of State Jon Husted’s office had been issuing rules for third-party qualification on a yearly basis since then — raising legal questions about the application of each year’s directive.
The litigation has taken a circuitous journey through the courts. It was attached to a separate lawsuit challenging another law that required circulators of candidate petitions to be Ohio residents.
