A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court this week rejected an appeal by Ralph Nader dating back to Nader’s failure to collect enough signatures to have his hame placed on the 2004 election ballot as an independent candidate for president.

Nader and his running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, were joined by Constitutional Party presidential candidate Michael A. Peroutka and his running mate, Chuck Baldwin, in challenging Hawaii’s laws governing ballot access.

Nader and Peroutka had each gathered more than enough signatures to qualify to appear on the ballot, but fell short after election officials removed names of petition signers who failed to provide all of the required information.

Hawaii law provides two ways for presidential candidates to get onto the ballot. Candidates of qualified political parties are automatically on the ballot. Independent candidates must submit petitions signed by one-percent of those voting in the prior presidential election.

In 2004, a new political party could qualify for the ballot with just 677 valid signatures, while as independent candidates they were required to gather 3,711 valid signatures to get onto the ballot.

Nader and Peroutka argued that the different signature requirements placed an impermissible burden on their candidacies, and violated the constitution by denying them equal treatment when compared to candidates of qualified political parties.

However, the 9th Circuit found that plaintiffs “gloss over important facts” about Hawaii’s overall regulatory scheme.

The court noted that political parties, to benefit from the lower signature requirements, must submit signatures 170 days before the primary, while those hoping to qualify as independents face a deadline just 60 days before the primary.

In addition, the court found “the burden on independent candidates seeking access to Hawaii’s ballot is low” compared to requirements in other jurisdictions. The court cited earlier opinions which upheld signature requirements as high as 5% of registered voters, depending on the office.

The court also noted that the signature requirement for independent candidates applies to presidential candidates only, while candidates for other offices have a lesser burden.

Because independent presidential candidates are not affili- ated with any party, they cannot receive their party’s nomina- tion or be asked to show support from a national party. Hawaii therefore has imposed a reasonable one percent signa- ture requirement on independent candidates who wish to appear on the presidential ballot. The one percent signature requirement does not impose a severe burden on independent candidates for president either alone or in comparison to the route qualified party candidates must take. Nor does this scheme run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.

The decision isn’t very long (9 pages), and is worth at least skimming through for future reference.

A recording of the oral arguments in the appeal is available on the 9th Circuit web site.