Two Michigan Tea Party Candidates Removed from Ballot Because They are Under Age 21

July 29th, 2010

The Michigan Tea Party (the ballot-qualified party), which most observers feel is an insincere party artificially created by Democrats, recently nominated 23 candidates.  But two of them will not appear on the ballot because they are under age 21.  The Michigan Constitution requires legislators to be age 21 or older.  See this story.

One of the candidates who is being removed from the ballot was running in the 13th State Senate district.  This is one of the most closely-balanced State Senate districts in Michigan.  Last time voters chose a State Senator in this district, in 2006, the vote for the two major parties had been:  Republican 57,204; Democratic 56,484.  Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.



U.S. District Court in Illinois Relieves Parties of Having to Decide Whom to Run in Special Election

July 29th, 2010

On July 29, a U.S. District Court handling the case Judge v Quinn ruled that any candidate for U.S. Senate in the November 2010 election for the full Illinios term should also automatically be on the ballot for the special 2-month term that is also on the November ballot.  See this story.

This seems peculiar, but it spares any of the parties from the task of choosing their own nominee for the 2-month term, so the decision will probably will go unchallenged.

Ohio Lawsuit to Require Party Labels on General Election Ballots for Judicial Races

July 29th, 2010

Ohio elects its judges in partisan elections, but there are no party labels on the general election ballot for candidates for judge.  On July 28, some Ohio judges, and others, filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the state must print party labels on general election ballots.  Here is the complaint.  The case is Ohio Council of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v Brunner, 1:10-cv-504, southern district.

Ohio uses partisan primaries to determine who each party nominates for judge, so the partisan affiliation of candidates for judge is obvious at the primary elections.  It is only the general election at which party labels are not present.  Ohio is the only state with a system with that characteristic.  Michigan is somewhat similar.  In Michigan, party conventions nominate candidates for State Supreme Court Justice, and then the voters elect them on a November ballot which also lacks party labels.

The lawsuit also attacks rules that make it impossible for candidates for judge to identify their party identification “after the day of the primary.”

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Rhode Island’s Straight-Ticket Device

July 28th, 2010

On July 28, Robert J. Healey and eleven other voters filed a lawsuit in federal court, to stop the use of a straight-ticket device in Rhode Island.  Healey is on the ballot as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor in November, with the partisan label “Cool Moose Party.”  Because his party is not ballot-qualified (although it was in the past) it won’t have a straight-ticket device on the November ballot.  Only the Democratic, Moderate and Republican Parties will have such a device.  The lawsuit charges that the straight-ticket device, as used in Rhode Island, is discriminatory.

The lawsuit also argues that the straight-ticket device does not work well with the kind of vote-counting system Rhode Island uses.  When a voter pushes the straight-ticket button, the face of the ballot (on a computer screen) does not make it obvious to the voter whom he or she has just voted for.  Also it causes many voters to ignore the parts of the ballot that contain ballot questions and non-partisan races.  The case is Healey v State of Rhode Island, cv-10-316S.  It has a hearing on August 5 at 9 a.m.

Two Candidates and Four Voters File Lawsuit Against Certain Aspects of California Top-Two System

July 28th, 2010

On July 28, two congressional candidates (in the 2012 election)  and four voters filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in San Francisco, arguing that two aspects of the California top-two system are unconstitutional, as applied to them.  The case is Field v Bowen, cgc10-502018.  Here is the complaint.  Here is the brief.

The California Constitution was amended in 2002 to provide that all valid votes must be counted.  Nevertheless, the implementing language for California’s Proposition 14 says that write-in votes in November, for Congress and state office, may never be counted.  Proposition 14 and its implementing law, SB 6, did not repeal the law that says write-in space must be printed on the ballot in November for those offices.  Nor did  Prop. 14 and SB 6 repeal the law that provides that write-in candidates in November may file a declaration of write-in candidacy.

The voter plaintiffs say it is very likely, given the limited number of candidates on the ballot in future general elections in California (only two candidates per office), that they will want to cast a write-in vote in November, and they want their write-ins counted.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court said in Burdick v Takushi in 1992 that states may abolish write-in space on ballots, it has also ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of voters to have their votes counted.

The two candidate-plaintiffs are Rodney Martin, who is a registered member of the Reform Party, and Jeff Mackler, who is a registered member of Socialist Action Party.  They wish to run for Congress in 2012, and they want their party to be printed on the primary ballot next to their names.  But Prop. 14 and SB 6 provide that only candidates who are registered members of qualified parties may have their party “preference” on the ballot.  Martin and Mackler have no choice but to have “no party preference” printed on the ballot next to their names.  Disclosure:  one of the voter plaintiffs is Richard Winger.

Michigan Sleuths Find Link Between Democratic Party Official and the Ballot-Qualified Tea Party

July 28th, 2010

This story reveals that some detective work has found a link between an official of the Democratic Party of Michigan, and the successful petition drive that put the Tea Party on the Michigan ballot.  The story also reveals that the party’s nominees, so far at least, are not making themselves available to the press.  Thanks to Babette Hogan for the link.

New London, Connecticut Newspaper Carries Op-Ed Critical of 2nd Circuit Decision in Campaign Finance Case

July 28th, 2010

The Day, the daily newspaper of New London, Connecticut, has this op-ed criticizing the 2nd circuit’s decision of July 13 in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield.  That decision said it is constitutional for a state to make it completely impossible for the nominee of a new party, or an independent candidate, to obtain any public funding at all, even if that new party nominee or independent candidate raises a large number of small private contributions.  At the same time, the same law gives very big amounts of public funding to any nominee of a party that had polled 20% for Governor at the last election, if that nominee raises a large number of small private contributions.

Christian Party Organizes in Louisiana, Places Independent Congressional Candidate on Ballot

July 28th, 2010

For several months, a newly-organized Christian Party has been attempting to qualify for the Louisiana ballot.  It needs 1,000 registered members, and says it now has 300 registered members.  It is running Anthony Marquize for U.S. House, 2nd district.  This is the district centered on New Orleans.  Marquize cannot have the party name on the ballot next to his name because the party is not yet ballot-qualified.  Marquize is one of three independent candidates who have qualified in that race.  See this story.  Thanks to Randall Hayes for the link.

The last time a party with the name “Christian Party” appeared on a statewide ballot was in Washington state in 1936.

Socialist Party Files Constitutional Ballot Access Lawsuit Against Michigan

July 28th, 2010

On July 21, the Socialist Party of Michigan filed a lawsuit in state court, seeking a declaration that the number of signatures needed to place a new party on the ballot violates the Michigan Constitution.  Michigan and Kansas are the only two states in which the number of signatures required to put a new party on the ballot is a higher number than the number of votes needed for an old party to remain ballot-qualified.  Therefore, the law seems discriminatory against new parties, and seems to favor old parties.  UPDATE:  here is the complaint, which is much more interesting than most complaints, and has lots of information about the modern-day history of the Socialist Party in Michigan.  It is 40 pages.

The case is Socialist Party of Michigan v Land, Ingham County Circuit Court, 10-867-CZ.  The case depends on a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in 1982, Socialist Workers Party v Secretary of State.  In that 1982 case, the State Supreme Court struck down the old Michigan requirement for new parties to get on the ballot that had been passed in 1976.  That old law required new parties to submit a petition, and then also poll a number of votes in the August primary equal to three-tenths of 1% of the turnout in that primary.  The “vote” for the party in the August primary was peculiar.  Voters who were voting in the primary saw a section of the ballot that asked if they wished certain petitioning parties to appear on the November ballot.  Primary voters who voted “yes” were not permitted to vote for any candidates of any party in the primary.  The State Supreme Court noted that this was not only very difficult to comply with, but that it was also discrminatory, because the old ballot-qualified parties were not subject to that August primary vote test.

Michigan currently requires 38,024 signatures to put a new party on the ballot, which is 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.  But it only requires approximately 20,000 votes for an old party to remain ballot-qualified.   The formula for the vote test for a party to remain on the ballot requires a vote of 1% of the winning candidate for Secretary of State’s vote total.  Obviously the vote cast for the winning candidate is considerably less than 1% of the entire vote cast.

The Michigan Socialist Party brief also notes that there is some evidence that this year’s Tea Party petition cost $100,000.  The Socialist Party has nominated seven candidates for office this year and asks the court to place its nominees on the November ballot.  The party has two U.S. House candidates, one state legislative candidate, and four statewide nominees.

The Socialist Workers Party filed a somewhat similar lawsuit against Massachusetts in 1970.  That case turned out badly.  The lawsuit pointed out that a new party needed a petition signed by 3% of the last gubernatorial vote.  But an old party could remain ballot-qualified as long as it had polled one-tenth of 1% for Governor in each of the last three gubernatorial elections.  The court upheld the 3% but ruled the vote test to be unconstitutional.  The court’s reasoning was flawed.  The Massachusetts court should instead have noted that Massachusetts was unconstitutionally discriminating against new parties, and let the legislature decide how to remedy the problem.

Massachusetts Legislature Passes National Popular Vote Bill

July 27th, 2010

On July 27, the Massachusetts legislature gave final approval to the National Popular Vote Plan bill.  Governor DuVal Patrick is expected to sign it.  Massachusetts will be the sixth state to approve the plan.   The others are Hawaii, Washington, New Jersey, Maryland and Illinois.

 

 

Paper Issues:

Blog Archives

Syndication

Subscribe to Ballot Access News via PayPal. Subscriptions are $15 for 12 issues a year ($20 foreign). Additional donations are welcome.

Subscribe to Ballot Access News via PayPal.

If you use your credit card to pay via PayPal, use this button.
New Feature:
Search Ballot Access News

Search ballot-access.org
Search WWW

 

Access to this site is free. Your donations support this site and the activities of Richard Winger in lobbying for free and open elections.

To subscribe via mail, click here and print out the form to mail.

Welcome to the OFFICIAL online home of Ballot Access News, a non-partisan newsletter reporting on the trials and tribulations of folks trying to put candidates on the ballot in the United States of America. There are many surprisingly restrictive ballot access laws in this country, which the average voter has no knowledge or conception of; part of our purpose here (besides reporting on progress made) is to report on these restrictive ballot access laws so that more people are aware of them. I hope you find these materials interesting and exciting; if you do, you can support the newsletter by subscribing!

Ballot Access News is edited and published by Richard Winger, the nation's leading expert on ballot access legal issues.

Issues available:

2010:

2009:

2008:

2007:

2006:

2005:

2004:

2003:

2002:

2001:

2000:

1999:

1998:

1997:

1996:

1995:

1994:

1993:

1992:

1991:

1990:

1989:

   

Essays by Richard Winger:

Additional articles/essays:

  • Politics, Soviet-style by S. Philip Gordon, regarding recent ballot access issues in Georgia – the US state, not the Russian territority!

Extra Features:

Other information:

  • Here's how to subscribe to Ballot Access News!

  • Here's information on Presidential Ballot Access as well as the vote totals of recent Presidential elections.

  • Here are some other sites which may also be of interest:

    Project Vote-Smart

    Project Vote Smart is a citizens' organization dedicated to serving all Americans with accurate and unbiased information for electoral decision-making. It was inaugerated in 1992 by former US Presidents Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and other leaders. Its webpage offers information about all ballot-listed candidates for all federal and state office.
    [Added:040729]

    The ACE Project
    An interesting site concerning itself with the "Administration and Cost of Elections", including issues of fairness and regulatory approaches in various countries. They seem to be almost blind to the ways that third parties in the USA are harmed by campaign finance rules crafted for the problems characteristic of the larger parties, or the ways that third parties would be disenfranchised by various proposed rules, but this is nevertheless a useful resource, particularly for the international comparisons it makes.
    [Added:001206]

    "Unofficial" B.A.N. Page

    At first, it looks like there's not much here. But then you follow the "Charts" link, and click on one of the listed candidates, and you'll get some truly wonderful nationwide maps of voting patterns.
    [Checked:991014]

    ThirdPartyNews.net

    A site that covers news about minor parties.
    [Checked:060414]

    Third Party Central

    Collects lots of good information and links relating to various third parties into one convenient location. Nice set of writings on why one should vote third-party.
    [Checked:991014]

    Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

    A surprisingly complete listing of votes cast in Presidential elections, including numerous third-party candidates and nice maps of vote distribution by state and (on the individual state pages) by county.
    [New-URL:010309]

    D.C.'s Political Report

    Very good presentation of candidate and party information, including virtually every known third-party group in the USA. Election results, candidate information, etc.
    [Updated:991214]

    Initiative For Texas

    A group trying to establish the right to Initiative and Referendum in Texas. Their work has intriguing parallels and overlaps with ballot access work. Every page at the site seems to have some music on it, which can get annoying after awhile, but otherwise it's an interesting site.
    [Checked:991014]

    Center for Voting and Democracy

    Folks concerned with alternative voting systems, and related issues, from a moderately leftist perspective. Useful articles describing how better systems of voting and electing actually work.
    [Added:000823]

The newsletter is published by and copyright by Richard Winger.