On October 21, a lower New York state court ruled that the Libertarian nominees, not the Socialist Workers Party nominees, should have the sixth line on the New York city ballot next month. The law provides that the qualified parties get the left-hand columns. New York has five qualified parties, so they fill up the 5 left-most columns.

The unqualified parties get the remaining columns, in the order in which they turn in their petitions. The Libertarians had turned in a petition for one nominee (for an office covering just part of New York city), earlier than any other unqualified party had turned in any petitions.

The Socialist Workers Party had filed next, for all of its nominees. Then, the Libertarians had turned in their remaining petitions, including the petition for the city-wide nominees. The City Board of Elections gave the sixth column to the Socialist Workers Party and the seventh column to the Libertarian Party. But the court reversed the decision. The law says the parties are listed in the order in which “the first candidate” of a group filed, not “the first candidate for Mayor”. The court applied these words literally.

The Libertarian Party of New Mexico has collected 6,800 signatures on its petition to get back on the ballot. Since 3,872 are required, this is probably enough. This is the first petition drive the Libertarian Party has completed anywhere in the U.S. in a year. By contrast, the Green Party has completed two during the last year (Louisiana and Utah).

Gloria Mattera, Green Party nominee for Boro President of Brooklyn, has almost raised the needed $50,000 in small donations needed for her to qualify for public campaign funds. If she succeeds, she will receive $200,000. For more information, see www.electgloria.org.

On October 20, a lower state court in North Carolina refused to order Libertarian Party nominees for city office onto the November 8, 2005 ballots. The judge did not explain his decision. A trial will be held next year in this same case, on whether the North Carolina ballot access laws for new parties violate the state Constitution.

On October 18, a lower New Hampshire state court upheld the law that gives the party that polled the most votes the top row (or the left-hand column) on the ballot. Akins v Secretary of State of New Hampshire, Merrimack Co., 04-E-360. The judge acknowledged that having the best spot on the ballot does help the party that enjoys that position, but still declined to require a random procedure to determine which party gets the best position.

The law that gives the best spot on the ballot to the party that polled the most votes, doesn’t specify which office. Therefore, the state adds up the vote for each party, for all the partisan offices on the ballot. The law has existed since 1994 and has always meant that Republicans get the best spot on the ballot.

On October 18, a U.S. District Court judge in Georgia enjoined the state from enforcing its new law, requiring voters who vote at the polls to show a government-issued photo ID. The injunction is 124 pages long and seems to be based on the 24th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids a poll tax or “any tax”. Georgia state ID costs $20. The state says it exempts the indigent, but the 24th amendment applies to all voters, not just indigents. Common Cause v Billups, 4:05-cv-201-HLM. If the ruling is not reversed on appeal, it may eventually have positive implications for states that require large filing fees (with no alternate means to get on the ballot) for all candidates except “paupers”.

On October 14, the Glynn County, Georgia Board of Elections disqualified Elaine Brown from running for Mayor of Brunswick. Elaine Brown had been considered one of the leading Green Party candidates in next month’s elections around the nation. Candidates for Mayor must have lived in Brunswick for a year before the election. Brown lived with friends in Brunswick in November 2004, but didn’t started renting her current home until December 2004. She plans a lawsuit to overturn the Board’s decision.

On October 12, the Oregon proponents of a “top-two” election system submitted a new version of their initiative. “Top-two” means an election system in which all voters get the same primary ballot, and that primary ballot lists all candidates for an office, regardless of party. Then, only the two highest vote-getters can ever appear on the November ballot.

Washington voters passed a “top-two” system last year, but this year a U.S. District Court declared it unconstitutional. Washington is appealing. In the meantime, the Oregon proponents have now changed their version of “top-two”. The new Oregon initiative will say that political parties have a right to tell elections officials which candidate or candidates for any particular office may have the party name printed next to the candidate’s name, on the ballot.

Presumably, if the new Oregon version passes, major and minor parties alike would then set up nominating conventions, and only the candidate chosen at the convention could have that party’s name on the primary ballot.

The new version does nothing about the other legal problem for “top two”, which is that congress passed a law in 1872 telling the states that they must hold congressional elections in November, with any run-off to be later than November. Furthermore, US Supreme Court ballot access jurisprudence says that candidates for Congress cannot be kept off the November ballot if they have a modicum of support and if they hold the qualifications to be a member of congress, and if they have not sabotaged their own political party by “sore loser” behavior. “Top two” would require candidates to have voter support of approximately 30% to be listed on the November ballot, far too high to be constitutional.

On October 13, U.S. District Court Judge Jeanne Scott, a Clinton appointee, upheld Illinois ballot access law for independent candidates for the legislature. The law requires a petition signed by 10% of the last vote cast, due in December of the year before the election.

Judge Scott made no mention of the numerous court precedents that have declared petition requirements higher than 5% to be unconstitutional. Such cases are from Arkansas, North Carolina, Ohio and South Dakota. She also made no mention of a summary US Supreme Court opinion from 1977, striking down an April petition deadline for an independent candidate for the legislature. Nor did she mention court precedents striking down early petition deadlines for non-presidential independent candidates, from Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

This case, Lee v Illinois State Bd. of Elections, was sponsored by the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE). COFOE is asking for funds for the appeal. Please send any help to COFOE, c/o Ballot Access News, PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147.

Bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress to let Hurricane Katrina evacuees vote absentee, if they certify they intend to return home eventually. According to Roll Call magazine, the bills are gathering support. They are HR3734 and S1867. The lead sponsors are Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Thanks to Ed Packard for this news.