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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On July 27, a lower state court in Georgia ruled that the deadline for paying the fiing fee must be complied with strictly. Therefore, Mary Norwood  is off the ballot as an independent candidate for Chair of the Fulton County Commission.  The petition deadline was July 13, and she complied with that.  But the deadline for filing her filing fee was noon on July 2, and she was four hours late for that.

She still has the option to file a federal lawsuit, alleging that the July 2 deadline is unconstitutional.  Only four states require independent candidates to file a filing fee or declaration of candidacy before the petition itself is due.  West Virginia voluntarily repealed that in 2009.  South Carolina once had such a deadline but it was declared unconstitutional in 1990 in the 4th circuit.  But the 5th circuit upheld such a separate deadline in 1996.  The other states that have separate deadlines are Texas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Kentucky.  The separate deadlines have never been challenged in court in the latter three states.

The voters of Shelby County, Tennessee (which contains Memphis) will vote on November 2, 2010, on a new charter, which would combine city and county government.  The proposal also asks the voters if they wish to use Instant Runoff Voting for council members.

The proposal won’t go into effect until the county’s vote-counting machines are ready to use IRV.  Also, IRV won’t go into effect unless both the city and the county vote for the proposal to unify the governments, even if the county voters vote separately in favor of the IRV idea.  As the comment below says, Memphis voters already voted to use IRV in 2008.

The North Carolina Supreme Court will hear the Libertarian/Green Party ballot access case on September 9 at 9:30 a.m.  The lawsuit, Libertarian Party v State Board of Elections, challenges many North Carolina election laws that relate to minor parties.  The lower courts have tended to treat the case as being solely about the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot.  For 2010, North Carolina requires 85,379 signatures.  That is the highest number of signatures required by any state except California.

However, the case also challenges the state’s refusal to let a party qualify in just one district or county, if it is unable to qualify statewide.  It challenges the state’s refusal to let voters register into unqualified parties.  It challenges the law that says even qualified parties cannot appear on the state income tax checkoff form, unless they have registration of at least 1%.  That latter provision has probably been responsible for the Libertarian Party losing $35,000 in donations that otherwise would have gone to the party.  The Libertarian Party has been ballot-qualified since 2008 but it does not have registration as high as 1%.  This is partly because every time a party goes off the ballot, it loses all its registrants.  Then, when it gets back on, it must start from zero.  On the 2008 tax returns, the state made a mistake and printed the Libertarian Party on the state income tax form anyway, and the party received $39,691.

The Libertarian Party filed the case in 2005.  Later, the Green Party joined the case.  The Green Party has never been on the ballot in North Carolina.

Another North Carolina ballot access case, challenging the number of signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House, has a hearing in federal court in Charlotte on August 12.  Thanks to Barbara Howe for the news about the State Supreme Court hearing in September.