Unity08 has completely revamped its own web page. The address is the same: www.unity08.com. The new page reveals that Unity08 has decided to use the independent procedure, rather than the new party procedure, in California, Alabama and Idaho. In all 3 states, the independent presidential procedures are easier than the new party procedures.

According to this story in the Riverside, California Press-Enterprise, wealthy Congressman Darrell Issa of San Diego County has agreed to pay to get an initiative on the California June 2008 ballot. That initiative would provide that each U.S. House district elect its own elector. The initiative already collected 100,000 signatures in August, then had been abandoned for lack of funding. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for this news. A poll released on October 31 shows that the initiative would lose; see this report.

The Democratic response continues to lack any hint that the Democrats might qualify similiar initiatives in states such as Florida and Ohio. As noted earlier, 17 of the 23 states that have the initiative process are states that voted for George W. Bush in each of the last two presidential elections.

The Houston, Texas mayoral race is on November 6, 2007. It is non-partisan. There are 3 candidates on the ballot: incumbent Bill White, Socialist Workers Party member Amanda Ulman, and professional wrestling promoter Outlaw Josey Wales IV. The Houston Chronicle ran this story on October 28 about the race. The Mayor has raised over $2,000,000 for his re-election fight. The story hints that he really raised it in case he runs for a bigger office in the future.

The Rhode Island legislature had adjourned for the year in June. However, on October 30, they came back for a one-day session, to consider whether they wished to override any gubernatorial vetoes. In a surprise move, the legislature also used its one-day session to pass S1152, which moves the presidential primary from March to February. The bill passed both houses, but the vote in the House was 38-25, and some House members are asking the Governor to veto that bill. Thanks to Franco Mattei for this.

On October 30, Ralph Nader, Peter Camejo, and six voters who wanted to vote for Nader in 2004, filed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee. The lawsuit, Nader v Democratic National Committee, 2007ca-7245B, was filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court. The complaint is 70 pages long. It details the national Democratic Party’s extensive support for challenges to Nader’s ballot positions, in states in which elections officials had accepted Nader’s petitions and placed him on the ballot. The complaint goes into great detail, including a coordinated effort to sabotage individual petition sheets in Oregon (anti-Nader activists were instructed to sign a petition sheet in the space reserved for the circulator, and then to line it out, which had the effect of ruining all the signatures already on that sheet). The complaint also talks about harassment of Nader circulators in Ohio and Oregon. The complaint also deals with incidents in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The lawsuit asks for a jury trial, in a claim for monetary damages.

New Jersey has a pilot program in this year’s legislative elections. Candidates in 3 particular legislative districts (but no other districts) could qualify for public funding, if they received $5 contributions from 400 voters in their district. One Libertarian, Jason Scheurer, in one of those 3 districts, did qualify, as did his major party opponents. However, the ballot will say “Clean Elections Candidate” next to the names of his opponents, and not next to Scheurer’s name. Also, since Scheurer is not a Democrat or a Republican, his amount of public funding is only a small fraction of the amount that his major party opponents are receiving.

Scheurer filed a lawsuit on October 10, arguing that the discriminatory treatment is unconstitutional, and also that he should also have “Clean Elections Candidate” next to his name on the ballot. On October 26, the court denied injunctive relief on the matter of the ballot label, on the grounds that Scheurer should have filed his lawsuit no later than September, when the ballots were printed. The other issues in the case are still alive and will be heard later.

On October 29, a Florida state court ruled that a declared write-in candidate is just as much a candidate as someone who is listed on the ballot. Florida’s Constitution says that when the only candidates running for a partisan office are from the same party, and the winner of the primary will have no opposition whatsoever in the general election, then all voters (not just members of that party) may vote in that party’s primary for that particular office.

Since Florida’s major parties don’t like members of other parties voting in their primaries, they frequently recruit someone to file as a declared write-in candidate in the general election for that office. That method, described as a “loophole”, means that the special Constitutional provision doesn’t apply, since the winner of the primary will still have opposition in the general election from the write-in candidate.

In 2006, a lawsuit had been filed by a Florida voter, arguing that write-in candidates in general elections are so weak and insubstantial that they should be deemed not to exist. The case is Jacobson v Martin, Lake Co. Circuit Court, 2006-ca-1160. But the judge ruled that a write-in candidate is “opposition”, and said that a write-in candidate should not be treated as non-existent. And, in support of his conclusion, it should be noted that write-in candidates have been elected to state legislatures at general elections in 1989 (Virginia), 1990 (Rhode Island), 1994 (Kansas), 1998 (Tennessee), and 2006 (Massachusetts). Write-in candidates frequently win local office.

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the ability of the National Democratic Party to strip the Florida Democratic Party of its delegates to the national convention, will ask the U.S. District Court to expedite his lawsuit. The case is pending in the Northern District of Florida, and is called Nelson v Dean, no. 4:07-cv-427. Nelson’s request will be filed on October 31. Thanks to Professor Franco Mattei for this news.

On October 18, the New York State Court of Appeals agreed to hear Master v Pohanka. This case concerns a dispute between the state organization of the Working Families Party, and the Suffolk County Working Families Party. The issue is whether a state party may have a bylaw taking power over nominations away from the county party and placing it in the hands of the state party.

The Independence Party has a similar case pending in the State Court of Appeals, called Conroy v Independence Party of New York State. The State Court of Appeals hasn’t accepted that case yet, but in any event the decision in the Working Families Party will settle the issue for both parties.

See this interesting commentary on the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Indiana Democratic Party v Rokita. That case concerns Indiana’s law requiring most voters at the polls to show government photo-ID, in order to vote.