South Carolina Senate Passes Bill to Impose Primary Screen-out, but Bill Also Lowers the Number of Signatures

January 29th, 2010

On January 28, the South Carolina Senate passed SB 590, after amending it in committee. The bill makes ballot access changes for independent candidates. Some of the changes are beneficial and some are restrictive.

The bill lowers the number of signatures for a statewide independent, and for a U.S. House independent, from 10,000 signatures to 4,000. For state legislature and county office, the petition would be lowered from 5% of the registered voters to 3%.

On the other hand, the bill imposes a primary screen-out. If anyone signs the petition and then votes in a primary that same year, the signature is void.

Also, the bill says that signatures may not be collected more than six months before the petition deadline. The petition deadline remains July 15. Also, the bill says that no one may sign for more than one independent candidate. And, the bill says independent candidates must file a declaration of candidacy no later than primary day. Finally, the bill says that no one may sign an independent candidate’s petition unless he or she had been registered for at least 30 days.

Parts of the bill would be held unconstitutional. In 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed a 3-judge U.S. District Court opinion that said that it is unconstitutional to restrict newly-registered voters from signing a petition. Also, the part of the bill that requires an independent candidate to file a declaration of candidacy by the primary date would not be constitutional as applied to independent presidential candidates. South Carolina presidential primaries are very early, and in 2008 were in January. Anderson v Celebrezze, a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision, said state laws requiring independent presidential candidates to declare earlier than the summer of a presidential election year are unconstitutional.

The bill now goes to the South Carolina House.



9th Circuit Issues a Stay of its Own Ruling in Felon Voting Case

January 29th, 2010

On January 28, the 9th circuit stayed its own opinion in Farrakhan v Gregoire, 06-35669. That is the lawsuit over whether the federal Voting Rights Act may be used to strike down state laws that prevent ex-felons and felons from voting. The 9th circuit had ruled that the Voting Rights Act does apply, and that because the evidence shows that the Washington state criminal justice system is racially discriminatory, therefore Washington may not ban felons and any type of ex-felons from voting.

The stay means that the 9th circuit opinion will not be implemented, until or unless the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case and settles it.

Portland, Maine, Chart Commission Recommends Instant Runoff Voting For Mayoral Elections

January 29th, 2010

On January 28, the Portland, Maine, Charter Commission voted 9-1 to recommend that Portland use Instant Runoff Voting for electing a Mayor. See this story. Now the proposal will go before the voters. Thanks to Thomas McMillan for the link.

Minnesota Holds 20-Candidate Gubernatorial Debate

January 28th, 2010

Twenty candidates for Governor of Minnesota recently participated in a single debate. See this story. Some of the candidates are running in the Democratic-Farmer-Labor primary, some in the Republican primary, and some in the Independence Party primary. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

Los Angeles Times Op-Ed on Citizens United v FEC

January 28th, 2010

The Los Angeles Times of January 28 has this op-ed by Stephen Weissman, associate director for policy for the Campaign Finance Institute between 2002 through 2009. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Delaware Bill, Doubling Number of Registrants for Minor Parties, Passes Legislature

January 28th, 2010

On January 28, the Delaware Senate passed HB 245, so now it goes to the Governor. The bill takes effect as soon as the Governor signs it. UPDATE: the Governor signed it on February 1. The bill doubles the number of registrants for a party to be recognized from one-twentieth of 1%, to one-tenth of 1%.

There are court precedents that say it violates due process for a state to increase ballot access requirements in an election season and then implement that change in that very same election year. They are: (1) Campbell v Bennett, 212 F Supp 2d 1339 (Alabama 2002); (2) Arizona Green Party v Bennett, injunction granted January 15, 2010; (3) four precedents from Michigan in 1988, all unreported, called Fulani v Austin, McCarthy v Austin, Warren v Austin, and Holmes v Austin; (4) Nader 2000 Primary Committee v Hechler, 112 F Supp 2d 575 (West Virginia 2000); (5) Blomquist v Thomsen, 739 F 2d 525 (Wyoming 10th circuit 1984).

Also there are precedents set by state elections offices, such as the one in Kansas in 1990 by then-Secretary of State Bill Graves. The 1990 session of the Kansas legislature doubled the statewide independent requirement from 2,500 to 5,000 signatures, effective immediately, but the Secretary of State refused to implement it that year, because it was concerned about fairness to an independent candidate who was petitioning to get on the ballot for Governor that year.

The Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department refused to let Alabama implement its new petition requirement for minor parties, passed in 1981, until 1983, because it was also concerned about fairness to parties that wanted to participate in the 1982 election.

All these precedents have been mentioned to the Delaware Commissioner of Elections, Elaine Manlove. She has not yet responded. If she implements the change this year, it is unlikely that the Green Party, or the Working Families Party, or the Constitution Party, or the Socialist Workers Party, will be on the ballot this year. The old requirement is approximately 310 registrations and the new requirement is approximately 620. The problem is that Delaware voters can’t change their registration from one party to another party in the months before a primary, or before a general election either, so any registration drive by a party that needs more registrants will be difficult this year.

Delaware minor parties that have enough registrations to meet the new requirements are the Independent Party and the Libertarian Party.

Libertarian Party Files for Rehearing in Louisiana Ballot Access Case

January 28th, 2010

On January 28, the Libertarian Party filed this brief for a rehearing en banc with the 5th circuit, in its 2008 ballot access case from Louisiana. The 5th circuit had ruled earlier that the case is moot. The brief for rehearing is 21 pages. The issue, to begin with, was whether the Secretary of State was wrong to keep the Libertarian, Socialist, and Reform Party presidential candidates off the 2008 ballot. The parties did not meet the Secretary of State’s deadline, although they did comply with the deadline established by the Governor.

Alaska Legislator Comes Up With a New Idea for Independent Voters in Primaries

January 28th, 2010

Alaska state representative Harry Crawford (D-Anchorage) has introduced HB 248, which would establish a new, additional primary ballot (in partisan races) just for independent voters. Alaska has registration by party, and over half the voters are registered independents. The primary ballot for independent voters would include the names of all candidates running for partisan office, from all the qualified parties.

The votes cast in the independent voter primary would be tallied into the vote tallies for the partisan primaries.

Under existing Alaska law and procedures, the Republican Party has its own primary ballot, and independents and Republicans are free to choose that primary ballot. Then there is a blanket primary ballot, which contains the names of all Democrats, Libertarians, and Alaskan Independence candidates. Any voter is free to choose that ballot.

So, already, independents can vote in either type of primary ballot. But if HB 248 became law, an independent voter would be free to vote for any candidate of any party, so that the independent could vote for a Republican for Governor and a Democrat for U.S. Senator.

Since all qualified parties in Alaska already let independent voters voter in their primaries, it doesn’t seem likely that any qualified party would object to the bill or the idea behind the bill. Although there are already a multitude of primary systems in the United States, it seems that the idea behind HB 248 is a new idea, something that has never been tried before. Missouri once had a primary ballot just for independent voters, but the purpose of that primary was to nominate independent candidates for inclusion on the general election ballot. Aside from that Missouri procedure (which no longer exists), no state has ever printed up primary ballots for partisan elections that are intended only for independent voters. Thanks to Scott Kohlhaas for this news.

Lawsuit on Arizona Public Funding is Now in Hands of 9th Circuit

January 28th, 2010

The lawsuit McComish v Brewer, which challenged the part of Arizona public funding that gives extra public funds to candidates who have well-funded opponents who aren’t using the public funding system, is likely to receive attention from the 9th circuit any day now.

The U.S. District Court Judge had invalidated part of the public funding law. The judge had also said that because she couldn’t seperate the valid parts of the program from the invalid parts, the entire program is suspended for now. But she stayed her own order to give the 9th circuit time to review her work. In the 9th circuit, the case is number 10-15165, and also 10-15166. This newspaper story says the 9th circuit has already taken some temporary action in the case, but according to the 9th circuit clerk’s office, the newspaper story is incorrect and the 9th circuit has done nothing so far with the case.

Alabama Ballot Access Bill Loses by One Vote in Committee, but Author Will Ask for Reconsideration

January 28th, 2010

On January 27, the Alabama House Constitution and Elections Committee defeated HB 142 by a vote of 6-5. See here. The sponsor of the bill is Representative Cam Ward (R-Alabaster). The link points to his blog. He will ask for reconsideration.

HB 142 would have lowered the independent candidate petition (for office other than president) from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1.5%. Alabama is the only state in which all routes to the ballot for non-major party candidates, for statewide office other than president, are worse than 2% of the last vote cast. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

A lawsuit against the Alabama 3% requirement, for U.S. House, is currently pending in the 11th circuit. All the briefs are in. It is not yet determined whether the 11th circuit will ask for oral argument. The basis for the lawsuit is that in at least one particular U.S. House district, the 3% formula requires an independent candidate for U.S. House to obtain more signatures than are needed for an independent presidential candidate. The U.S. District Court had upheld that, even though twice the U.S. Supreme Court has said that states may not require more signatures for an office in just part of a state, than for a statewide office. The U.S. District Court said the U.S. Supreme Court precedent only applies if the office within just part of the state is a municipal office. The U.S. District Court didn’t even mention the other U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which concerned comparing county office to statewide office.

« Previous Page — « Previous Entries
Next Entries » — Next Page »

 

  

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.

 

Search Ballot Access News

Loading

 
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:

2012:

2011:

2010:

2009:

2008:

2007:

2006:

2005:

2004:

2003:

2002:

2001:

2000:

1999:

1998:

1997:

1996:

1995:

1994:

1993:

1992:

1991:

1990:

1989:

1988:

1987:
   

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.