On June 21, the Maryland State Court of Appeals (the highest state court in that state) struck down a Maryland law that says if someone from “County A” signs a statewide petition that is supposed to be just for residents of “County B”, that the “County A” signature is invalid. The case is Nader v Maryland State Board of Elections, no. 76-Sept 2004 term. The vote was 4-3.

This is the first time any court has ever ruled that a signature must be considered valid, even if it is on the wrong petition. The fact that the state has a list of all the registered voters in the state was the key fact. Under the Help America Vote Act, all states are required to keep a centralized list of all the voters in that state. This decision may be influential for other states in the future. Thanks to Doug McNeil for this news.

Nader had filed this lawsuit in 2004. The State Court of Appeals at that time had issued a one-sentence order putting him on the ballot, which meant that the court thought the law was probably unconstitutional. However, there was no guarantee that when the court finally issued its opinion, that it would come to this conclusion. There have been times when a court issued an injunction putting a candidate or a party on the ballot, but by the time they actually wrote the opinion, they came to a different conclusion and upheld the law that had been enjoined.

According to a news story about Unity08 carried in the June 21 issue of The Politico, Unity08 now has 75,000 participants. In other words, 75,000 individuals have signed up to vote in Unity08’s proposed on-line national convention next June. See here for the story. The story also quotes Gerald Rafshoon, one of the founders of Unity08, as saying that the bulk of Unity08 activists and members seem to oppose present U.S. policy in Iraq. As far as is known, this is the first time leaders of Unity08 have even hinted at Unity08’s leanings regarding U.S. policy involving Iraq.

On June 20, the North Carolina Senate passed HB91, which moves the deadline to register to vote to only 3 days before an election. The bill had already passed the House, but in a slightly different form, so it must return there. Some newspapers call HB91 an “election-day registration bill”, but that is not strictly accurate.

On June 19, Senator Barack Obama was asked how he feels about general election presidential debates that include everyone who is on the ballot in enough states to win. Larry Reinsch, the Iowa activist who had earlier asked Senator Hillary Clinton the same question, was also the questioner for Obama.

Obama responded, “I think it’s a valid point, and I will tell you that from the perspective of the voter, if realistically, because we don’t have a Parliamentary System, you’re basically not gonna get a Libertarian elected president.” (this response, of course, was not strictly responsive to the question).

Reinsch then said, “You know why that is?”

Obama said, “Well, because we’ve got a winner-take-all system.”

Reinsch: “No, the biggest problem is because we don’t get to hear about them. If we could hear about them they’d get the polls.”

Obama: “I taught voting rights, and I’ll tell you the problem is, part of it is the structure of our democracy. When you have a winner-take-all system, then what happens, it’s very hard for third parties to get a foothold. Which is why we never really, even when guys like George Wallace did have a hearing, the worse thing when Ross Perot did have a hearing and had millions of dollars, its still very hard for them to get leverage. But the general point, my general attitude is as many people get a hearing as possible. But what we’ll hear from the networks is…look, its nice, we’re not just setting up a platform for a theoretical debate, we’re choosing the next President.”

Reinsch: “But its not up to them to decide.”

Obama: “I understand, I understand…well, that’s not entirely true, but anyway, I get your point and I’m generally sympathetic to it.”

As one can see, Senator Obama didn’t really focus very much on the specific question of whether he would be willing to debate all his opponents who are on the ballot in enough states to win (assuming he is the Democratic nominee). But, it was a start. Congratulations to Larry Reinsch for having raised this important question with two leading presidential candidates. Reinsch will be trying to get a response from former Governor Mitt Romney in the next few days.

The Washington, D.C. city council is responsible for writing the District’s election laws. The city council almost passed a bill in 2003 replacing mandatory petitions with filing fees, but then it seemed the idea had been forgotten. However, someone on the city council has revived the idea, and staff for the city council is researching the idea.

If the District replaced petitions with filing fees for general election ballot access (especially presidential ballot access), that would be a boon for minor parties. The D.C. presidential petition for the general election is one of the most difficult in the nation. It is the only petition that George Wallace didn’t attempt in 1968; it is the only petition that Pat Buchanan didn’t attempt in 2000; and the Constitution Party has never attempted it. It requires a petition signed by 1% of the number of registered voters. That is more than twice as difficult as the median petition requirement of the 50 states, for presidential candidates.

On June 20, the 3rd circuit ruled that a government employee in a non-policy making position cannot be fired, just because she is apolitical and doesn’t support the party in power. The case is Galli v New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, no. 05-4114.

In 1976, 1980, and 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that government employees in non-policymaking positions cannot be fired, demoted, or otherwise injured, just because of their partisan affiliation. In those cases, the injured employee was an active partisan of the party out of power.

By contrast, in the recent New Jersey case, the injured employee was fired not because she was a Republican, but because she was a registered independent who kept her political opinions private. The 3rd circuit said “The First Amendment protects an employee’s failure to engage in any political activity whatsoever…A citizen’s right not to support a candidate is just as relevant for First Amendment purposes as her right to support one…The right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”

The vote was 2-1. The dissenting judge argued that an employee who doesn’t speak out on politics is not exercising her rights.

The decision will be somewhat useful should any new or previously unqualified party sue Illinois, over Illinois law that requires a new party to run a full slate of candidates, if it wishes to appear on the ballot. The case would be unusual; the political party that files such a case would be arguing for the right not to run for certain positions.

On June 19, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed SB 293. It lets the Republican Party certify its nominees for president and vice-president as late as September 5. The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill only applies to the Republican Party and it only applies for 2008.

On June 20, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed HB 426 into law. It moves the primary (for all office) from March to February. It also moves the deadline for a qualified party to notify the state of its presidential and vice-presidential candidates from late August to September 5. This is to accomodate the Republican Party’s unprecedently late national convention. The party won’t choose its ticket formally until September 3 or September 4, 2008.

Illinois will be the first state in U.S. history in which major parties will nominate their candidates for Congress in February of an election year. No state has ever before held a congressional primary (for regularly-scheduled elections) earlier than March.

On June 20, Mayor Michael Bloomberg held a press conference on a matter related to New York city matters. The press nevertheless asked him about running for president. He said, “I have said that my intention is to be Mayor for the next 929 days” and he reiterated that remains his plan.

South Carolina S99 has become law, over Governor Mark Sanford’s veto. The bill provides that political parties that polled 5% or more of the vote for president in the last election may have presidential primaries paid for by state government. The old law required all parties to administer and pay for their own presidential primaries, although they had always been entitled to use government buildings rent-free as polling places.

The major parties had been paying for their presidential primaries by charging presidential candidates a very large fee; for example, the Republican Party was charging $25,000. The new law says that the State Board of Elections will set the fee, but the State Board cannot exceed $20,000. The money will go to the government, not the parties. Parties will still set the date of their own presidential primaries. Thanks to Scott West for this news.