August 17, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
ACLU Goes to Court for the Second Time to Defend Access to
the Ballot
LITTLE ROCK, AR -- The
American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas made its case in federal court today
for Arkansas to officially recognize the state Green Party. At stake is
access to the ballot for third party candidates and preservation of free public
political dialogue.
“We’re pleased that we were able to show the court
how burdensome the party recognition scheme is for new parties like the Green
Party,” said Bryan Sells, a staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project,
who argued the case. “This scheme effectively excludes them from the playing
field in the competition of ideas.”
In order to get on the ballot, Arkansas
election law requires that an independent candidate provide 10,000 signatures of
voters in the previous gubernatorial or presidential election, but that third
party candidates must provide a full three percent of those signatures -- a much
higher threshold.
On May 30, 2006, the Green Party of Arkansas
submitted approximately 18,000 signatures to the Secretary of State in support
of its New Political Party Petition -- more than the 10,000 valid signatures
required of an independent candidate, but clearly fewer than the 24,171 that
would have been required to satisfy the three-percent mandate. The Secretary of
State refused to accept the petition, claiming it lacked the requisite number of
signatures.
“We are hopeful that the court will recognize this important
right,” said Holly Dickson, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Arkansas. “The
party has the right to express its political philosophy in the public arena, and
the public has a right to hear a variety of ideas -- and not just those of the
two major parties.”
Today’s hearing took place before Federal Judge George
Howard, Jr., the same judge who declared the signature provision in the law
unconstitutional in 1996. In that case, Judge Howard held that the number of
signatures required of new parties seeking recognition must be the same as the
number required of independent candidates seeking ballot access. The court said
that the three percent signature requirement for new political parties was “an
arbitrary classification” that made it “unreasonably difficult for proponents to
advance new political parties,” and that proponents of a political party should
be allowed to submit the same finite number of signatures established for
independent candidates. The decision was affirmed in a 2001 ACLU
case.
“In Arkansas it appears that there has long been a deliberate
effort on the part of legislators to keep minor parties off the ballot,” said
ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Rita Sklar. “Former Supreme Court Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor eloquently expressed the need for oversight of state
election schemes in her concurring opinion in Clingman v. Beaver: ‘Although the
State has a legitimate—and indeed critical—role to play in regulating elections,
it must be recognized that it is not a wholly independent or neutral
arbiter. Rather, the State is itself controlled by the political party or
parties in power, which presumably have an incentive to shape the rules of the
electoral game to their own benefit.’”
Judge Howard said that his decision
would be rendered no later than August 24, 2006.
