A federal judge heard arguments Monday on whether state law unconstitutionally makes it harder for independent candidates to get on election ballots than candidates from established parties.
U.S. District Judge James M. Moody Jr. said he expects to issue a written ruling in about two weeks.
He first must consider whether the issue, raised in a 2014 lawsuit, is moot now that the election is over, and whether the candidates have legal standing to continue pursuing the suit now that they are no longer running for office. If the case makes it past both obstacles, the judge said he will decide the merits of the case based solely on legal arguments.
When the lawsuit was filed in February 2014, three independent candidates complained that Act 1356 of 2013 unfairly shortened the time period in which they must collect signatures and turn in petitions to get their names on the ballot. The petition process starts 90 days before the filing period begins, but as a result of Act 1356, it now ends in March. Previously, independent candidates and third parties had until May to turn in petitions.
While independent candidates must gather signatures -- usually a number equal to 3 percent of registered voters -- Democratic and Republican candidates pay a filing fee to the state party to file for state or federal office.
A.J. Kelly, an attorney who is also the deputy secretary of state, told Moody during oral arguments Monday that the issue is moot and the plaintiffs lack standing. He also said the 2013 law is constitutional because it wasn't enacted to treat independent candidates differently from others, but as a way for the secretary to effectively manage elections while conforming with federal laws.
"Election administration does require earlier deadlines," Kelly said, noting that the secretary of state's office has only a short time to review thousands of names on petitions before preparing ballots to send out by deadlines mandated by the U.S. Department of Justice. He noted that the department keeps up with the office, making it clear that if even one voter is kept from voting, that "is a constitutional violation."
Attorney James Linger of Tulsa, representing the plaintiffs, argued, "They say it's so complicated ... [but] I really think they're up to the task."
"There's no reason we can't go back to where the deadline was in May," Linger said. "They have presented absolutely nothing that justifies such an early deadline. The law is unconstitutional."
He noted, "When an election law impacts fundamental rights, as it does here ....we look to the state to see if the state has a compelling basis" for its actions.
The lawsuit originally had three plaintiffs -- Mark Moore, a Benton County resident who was running for lieutenant governor; Michael Harrod, a Washington County resident running for the District 84 House seat; and William Chris Johnson, a county judge contender from White County. Johnson was later dropped from the lawsuit because he moved to Arizona.
The remaining plaintiffs say that despite the fact that the 2014 election is over, the constitutional question still must be decided so it's clear for future elections. Kelly has argued that because the lawsuit was filed before the 2014 filing period began on Feb. 24, none of the plaintiffs had yet been harmed by the new law, which means none of them ever had actual "standing," or proof of harm, to challenge the law. Linger said the plaintiffs could still have standing as voters or as future candidates.
Act 1356 largely dealt with changing the rules for third parties to appear on ballots, but it also amended the procedure for independent candidates.
Metro on 07/28/2015