On April 2, the Tennessee Secretary of State asked the 6th circuit to reverse the U.S. District Court and remove the Green Party and the Constitution Party from the 2012 ballot. The U.S. District Court had put them both on the ballot on February 3, on the basis that the ballot access law for newly-qualifying parties is unconstitutional and that these two plaintiff political parties had shown they have a modicum of support. Here is the state’s 29-page brief.

The state argues that it is rare for courts to place minor parties on the ballot when they don’t submit enough valid signatures, and mentions only one instance: the 2008 example when a U.S. District Court in Ohio put the Libertarian Party on the ballot. However, there have been many more instances when a court ordered a minor party onto a ballot even though that minor party had not collected enough signatures, and sometimes not any signatures. Examples are:

Arkansas: the Reform Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1996 even though it needed 21,505 valid signatures and submitted only 17,262 valid signatures. The party won the case because the deadline was too early. Citizens to Establish a Reform Party v Priest.

Hawaii: the Peoples Party was ordered onto the ballot for the 1974 election even though it needed 3,002 valid signatures and the party didn’t submit any for that election. The party won the case because the state had an unconstitutional county distribution requirement. Peoples Party v Ariyoshi.

Idaho: the Populist Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1984 even though it needed 8,749 valid signatures and only submitted 372. The party won the case because the May 30 petition deadline was too early, and the state had an unconstitutional county distribution requirement. Populist Party v Evans.

Kansas: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1982 even though it needed 22,088 valid signatures and submitted no signatures. The party won the case because old qualified parties had obtained their status without any petition, and had been permitted by the state to remain on. Reagan v State.

Nebraska: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1976 even though it needed 4,514 valid signatures and submitted only 2,900. The party won the case because the deadline for a new party to qualify was too early. MacBride v Exon.

Nevada: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1986 even though it needed 13,531 valid signatures and submitted only 5,000. The party won the case because the deadline was too early. Libertarian Party of Nevada v Swackhamer.

Ohio: the Socialist Labor Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1970 even though it needed 202,114 valid signatures and did not submit any. The party won the case because the number of signatures was too high. Socialist Labor Party v Rhodes.

Ohio(2): the Socialist Party was ordered onto the ballot in 2008 even though it needed 20,114 valid signatures and did not submit any on a party petition, although it collected 2,000 on an independent presidential petition. The party won the case because the deadline was too early. Moore v Brunner.

Oklahoma: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1984 even though it needed 44,157 valid signatures and only submitted 28,894. The party won the case because the law only allowed 90 days to collect the signatures. Libertarian Party of Oklahoma v Oklahoma State Election Board.

West Virginia: the Green Party was ordered onto the ballot in 2000 even though it needed 12,730 valid signatures and only submitted 7,111. The party won the case because the legislature had doubled the petition requirement in 1999 and should not have put the new law into effect until after the 2000 election was over, and also because the state unconstitutionally banned out-of-state circulators.

Wyoming: the Libertarian Party was ordered onto the ballot in 1984 even though it needed 8,000 valid signatures and only submitted 3,735. The party won the case because the petitioning period of only two months was too short.