A federal appeals court has ordered a federal judge to explain why he decided that minor political parties in Pennsylvania should be required to gather a certain number of signatures from a specific number of counties in order to get their candidates on the ballot.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Wednesday vacated the ruling of U.S. District Chief Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a challenge to the constitutionality of the state's election laws filed jointly by the Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties of Pennsylvania.

In 2012, the minor parties were successful in their initial challenge to the constitutionality of the state's election law, which says political groups not classified as “major parties” attempting to appear on a ballot need to gather a considerable number of signatures—and the validity of those signatures can be challenged, which can lead to oppressive financial costs for the smaller parties, according to Third Circuit Judge Jane Richards Roth's opinion. The threat of high costs resulting from challenges has deterred some candidates from running.

After their victory, the parties and the state were asked to provide prospective orders as to what the law should require going forward. Stengel adopted the state's version, which was based on a bill pending before the state legislature. It required minor party candidates to gather two and one-half times as many signatures as major party candidates have to in order to be placed on the ballot.

It also provided a county requirement, which mandated that for the Office of Governor, a minor party candidate had to gather at least 5,000 signatures, including a minimum of 250 from at least 10 counties. For other statewide offices, the bill required between 1,250 and 2,500 signatures with at least 250 from at least five counties, according to Roth. Stengel provided no explanation for choosing the state's version.

Roth said that the importance of the subject merited an explanation from the court. She also explored the facets of the arguments for and against county-based requirements.

She explained that county requirements are typically implemented to keep “frivolous candidates” off the ballot by demonstrated significant geographical support.

“However, signature gathering requirements based on geographical units other than counties may serve that interest just as well,” Roth said. “For example, congressional districts must have populations that are 'as nearly as practicable' equal in population; thus, requiring a minimum number of signatures to be gathered from different congressional districts serves the interest of requiring candidates to show support across different geographical areas but does not dilute anyone's voting power. Hence, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to impose county-based signature gathering requirements that significantly burden voting rights.”

She added, “the district court can impose the county-based signature-gathering requirements if it concludes that the requirements would have no appreciable impact on voting rights. The court did not so conclude here, and we have no basis in the record to reach such a conclusion independently.”

Oliver B. Hall of the Center for Competitive Democracy in Washington, D.C., represented the parties.

“We prevailed on appeal and the court has vacated the requirement that we were challenging, so we're happy with that,” Hall said. “Now the case has to go back to the district court to fashion a remedy that doesn't raise the constitutional concerns that the prior order did.”

The state Attorney General's Office, which handled the case for defendant and former Commonwealth Secretary Pedro Cortes, did not respond to a request for comment.

A federal appeals court has ordered a federal judge to explain why he decided that minor political parties in Pennsylvania should be required to gather a certain number of signatures from a specific number of counties in order to get their candidates on the ballot.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Wednesday vacated the ruling of U.S. District Chief Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a challenge to the constitutionality of the state's election laws filed jointly by the Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties of Pennsylvania.

In 2012, the minor parties were successful in their initial challenge to the constitutionality of the state's election law, which says political groups not classified as “major parties” attempting to appear on a ballot need to gather a considerable number of signatures—and the validity of those signatures can be challenged, which can lead to oppressive financial costs for the smaller parties, according to Third Circuit Judge Jane Richards Roth's opinion. The threat of high costs resulting from challenges has deterred some candidates from running.

After their victory, the parties and the state were asked to provide prospective orders as to what the law should require going forward. Stengel adopted the state's version, which was based on a bill pending before the state legislature. It required minor party candidates to gather two and one-half times as many signatures as major party candidates have to in order to be placed on the ballot.

It also provided a county requirement, which mandated that for the Office of Governor, a minor party candidate had to gather at least 5,000 signatures, including a minimum of 250 from at least 10 counties. For other statewide offices, the bill required between 1,250 and 2,500 signatures with at least 250 from at least five counties, according to Roth. Stengel provided no explanation for choosing the state's version.

Roth said that the importance of the subject merited an explanation from the court. She also explored the facets of the arguments for and against county-based requirements.

She explained that county requirements are typically implemented to keep “frivolous candidates” off the ballot by demonstrated significant geographical support.

“However, signature gathering requirements based on geographical units other than counties may serve that interest just as well,” Roth said. “For example, congressional districts must have populations that are 'as nearly as practicable' equal in population; thus, requiring a minimum number of signatures to be gathered from different congressional districts serves the interest of requiring candidates to show support across different geographical areas but does not dilute anyone's voting power. Hence, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to impose county-based signature gathering requirements that significantly burden voting rights.”

She added, “the district court can impose the county-based signature-gathering requirements if it concludes that the requirements would have no appreciable impact on voting rights. The court did not so conclude here, and we have no basis in the record to reach such a conclusion independently.”

Oliver B. Hall of the Center for Competitive Democracy in Washington, D.C., represented the parties.

“We prevailed on appeal and the court has vacated the requirement that we were challenging, so we're happy with that,” Hall said. “Now the case has to go back to the district court to fashion a remedy that doesn't raise the constitutional concerns that the prior order did.”

The state Attorney General's Office, which handled the case for defendant and former Commonwealth Secretary Pedro Cortes, did not respond to a request for comment.