Whether a state's ballot access requirements that impose substantial financial burdens on minor political parties violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments' protections of political association and electoral participation

No question identified. : 2 governing ballot access. The undisputed facts and uncontested evidence establish that it costs a new political party or independent candidate for statewide office $1 million or more to comply with that statutory scheme. The Court of Appeals nevertheless upheld the constitutionality of Texas’s statutory scheme, based in part on its conclusion that Applicants “failed to establish that the costs amount to a consequential burden in this case.” Ex. 1 at 9 (emphasis original). 4. The decision of the Court of Appeals reflects a confusion among the lower courts as to the proper legal standard to apply when analyzing the constitutionality of ballot access statutes. Applicants seek an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to allow them adequate time to conduct the legal research necessary to demonstrate that lower courts are divided with respect to this issue, and to prepare a petition for certiorari demonstrating that this case is an appropriate vehicle for the Court to decide the issues it raises. 5. The undersigned counsel is Applicants’ lead counsel in this matter. The undersigned counsel is also lead or co-counsel in several other pending cases. See Ortiz, et al. v. North Carolina State Board of Elections , No. 5:24-cv-00420 (E.D. N. C.); Stein v. LaRose , No. 2:24-cv-4042 (S.D. Oh.) ; Indiana Green Party, et al. v. Morales , No. 23-2756 (6th Cir.) ; Brown, et al. v. Yost , No. 24-3354 (6th Cir.). In that capacity, during the pendency of the period for filing a petition for certiorari in this matter, the undersigned counsel has: (1) researched, drafted and filed a Verified Complaint ; (2) drafted and filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ; and (3) filed and briefed an emergency appeal. The undersigned counsel also traveled out of state to defend the validity of nomination petitions in a state administrative proceeding. See Challenge to Jill Stein’s Nomination Papers by John Tackeff , Decision BLC 20244 (N.H. Ballot Law Comm’n.). Additionally, as in-house counsel to the defendant in two cases 3 pending in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, the undersigned counsel has dedicated substantial time to supporting and advising lead defense counsel in those cases. See Vest v. McArdle, et al. , No. 2024-CAB-002804 (D.C. Sup. Ct.); Harlos v. McArdle, et al. , No. 2024-CAB006230. Due to these obligations, and others, the undersigned counsel has not had adequate time to devote to the preparation of a petition for certiorari in this matter. 6. The undersigned counsel is lead counsel in Indiana Green Party v. Morales , supra, and is responsible for authoring the petition for certiorari in that matter, which currently must be filed on or before December 22, 2024. The undersigned counsel will not have sufficient time to prepare that petition, and the petition in the instant matter, within the current deadlines. 7. For the foregoing reasons, and due to the onset of the holiday season, good cause exists for the Court to grant the requested extension of time. WHEREFORE, Applicants respectfully request that an extension of time be granted, to and including January 23, 2025, within which they may file a petition for writ of certiorari. Dated: November 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted, Oliver B. Hall D.C. Bar. No. 976463 CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE DEMOCRACY P.O. Box 21090 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 248-9294 Counsel for Applicants