top of page
  • Writer's pictureOliver Hall

CCD Wins Major Case Striking Down Texas's Nomination Petition Procedures

In a huge win for Texas voters, on September 29, 2022 Federal District Judge Robert Pitman struck down Texas's nomination petition procedures as applied to independents and new or minor parties.

Judge Pitman's order in Miller v. Hughs, No. 1:19-CV-700 (W.D. Tex.), granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, a group of independent voters, candidates and minor political parties and their supporters.

Judge Pitman held:

"(1) the challenged provisions, to the extent they require paper petitions, violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights and

(2) the challenged provisions, to the extent they require a paper petitioning process, impose unequal burdens on Plaintiffs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Judge Pitman therefore ordered the parties to confer in an effort to agree upon appropriate relief. His order indicates that Texas should be required to adopt electronic, web-based petitioning procedures that enable automatic validation of signatures in real time.

Such procedures will drastically reduce the burden and expense of complying with Texas's ballot access requirements because they will enable voters to sign nomination petitions from the comfort of their own homes, potentially eliminating the need for independents and new or minor parties to hire paid petition circulators.

We'll have more to say on this breaking news but for now, this decision is the first ballot access win in Texas in years and a major victory for the voters of Texas and nationwide!

648 views1 comment

Recent Posts

See All

The Democrats' Anti-Democratic Attack Dogs

CCD counsel Oliver Hall has published "The Democrats' Anti-Democratic Attack Dogs" in the latest issue of Capitol Hill Citizen, available here. The article details the Democratic Party's history of su

댓글 1개

2022년 9월 29일

Congratulations. It's like pulling bad teeth. One by one.

The Court considered the extent to which the TX ballot access scheme affected "the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate". In doing so it considered the rights of candidates and parties to equal protection under the law, but failed to consider the "injury' to the "immunities and privileges of citizens". to vote for candidates and parties. That's a higher, stricter standard that these overly restrictive ballot access laws cannot meet.

bottom of page