Murkowski Gets a Write-in Vote in Concrete Sidewalk
November 30th, 2010The New York Times has this picture and story about a “write-in vote” etched in a freshly-poured concrete sidewalk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nader Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear His Hawaii Ballot Access CaseNovember 30th, 2010On November 30, Ralph Nader asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his ballot access case from Hawaii. The case is Nader v Cronin, 10-728. The case originated in 2004, and challenges the Hawaii policy that requires six times as many signatures for an independent presidential candidate, as for an entire new party. When a new party qualifies in Hawaii, it is entitled to its own primary, and the easy ability to run a candidate for every partisan office in the state. Thus, a new party has far more impact on the ballot than a single independent presidential candidate. Here is the cert petition. Nader argues that requiring six times as many signatures for an independent presidential candidate than for a new party is not even rational. The 9th circuit had upheld the law in an unsigned short opinion on September 1, 2010. The U.S. Supreme Court now has two ballot access cases pending. The other one is the Coffield case, which challenges the requirements for an independent or minor party candidate to get on the ballot for U.S. House in Georgia. Those Georgia laws have not been fundamentally altered since 1964, and they are so difficult, they have never been used for U.S. House candidates. An independent candidate did qualify in 1964, but that was before the legislature added a notary requirement, moved the deadline from October to July, limited when such petitions could start to circulate, and started requiring the petitions to be checked for validity. The Georgia law requires a petition of 5% of the number of registered voters. California Supreme Court Asks Attorney General to Respond in Case that Challenges Ballot Label Discrimination in Proposition 14November 30th, 2010On November 29, the California Supreme Court asked California’s Attorney General to file a response brief in Field v Bowen, S188436. This is the case that challenges two particular problems with the implementing law for California’s top-two system. One of those problems is that the law does not let all candidates print their party label on the ballot. The other problem is that the implementing legislation says write-ins should not be counted, yet it leaves in place many old state laws that say write-in space must be permitted on November ballots and that write-ins candidates may file a declaration of write-in candidacy for November elections. The recent filing by the plaintiffs only emphasizes the party label discrimination, not the write-in problem. Here is a Sacramento Bee story about this lawsuit. Illinois House Kills Bill to Convert Open Primary to a Secret Open PrimaryNovember 30th, 2010Illinois has always had an open primary. Illinois has never asked voters to choose a party when they fill out voter registration forms. Illinois primary rules require voters at the polls on primary day to publicly ask for one party’s primary ballot. Earlier this year, Governor Pat Quinn rewrote HB 4842, to convert it into a bill that says Illinois should switch to a secret open primary. A secret open primary is one in which each voter decides in the secrecy of the voting booth which party’s primary to vote in. The Governor rewrote the bill under a process that is called an “Amendatory Veto.” The Illinois legislature is currently meeting in its veto session. The Illinois House took no action on the Governor’s version of HB 4842, so it has now died, and the Illinois primary will remain one in which a voter must publicly choose a primary ballot. In an Illinois veto session, when the Governor carries out an amendatory veto, that bill is sent back to the house of origin. If that house simply does nothing, the bill dies, because it is never sent over to the other house. The news media of the United States have no consistent definition of “open primary”. The term means something different in almost every state, if one only reads the newspapers. In Pennsylvania, “open primary” means a closed primary in which the party organization makes no endorsement. In Illinois, “open primary” means a secret open primary. In California, “open primary” means a top-two system. In Florida, “open primary” means a blanket primary. In Kentucky, “open primary” means a closed primary in which independents can choose any party’s primary to vote in. Because of this inconsistent terminology, Illinois newspapers are reporting that Governor Quinn’s “open primary” idea has been killed. Challenge Period Opens for Chicago CandidatesNovember 30th, 2010November 30 is the first day for petitions to be challenged in Chicago. All Chicago city elections are non-partisan, but that does not mean there are no ballot access hurdles for candidates. See this story.
Comments Off
Joe Miller Lawsuit to Stop Alaska Vote Certification is Moved to State Court in JuneauNovember 29th, 2010On November 29, a lower Alaska state court in Fairbanks held a hearing in Joe Miller’s lawsuit against the state of Alaska. Miller, the Republican Party nominee for U.S. Senate, had filed the lawsuit to stop the state from certifying Lisa Murkowski as the winner in the U.S. Senate race. The judge in Fairbanks ruled that the case should have been filed in state court in Juneau. See this story. The next step will be for the new judge to decide whether Murkowski should be allowed to intervene in the case. Only then can the case get to the merits. A hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 1. Potential Candidates in Two Upcoming California Special Elections Ask California Supreme Court for Relief on Ballot LabelsNovember 29th, 2010As of November 29, two potential candidates for upcoming California special legislative elections asked the California Supreme Court for judicial relief, to give them accurate ballot labels, instead of the label “no party preference.” The upcoming California special legislative elections are the first elections in which California’s top-two system will be in effect. The candidates are Michael Chamness in the 28th State Senate election, and Carol Winkler in the 17th State Senate election. Chamness is a registered member of the Coffee Party, and he wants to run with “My party preference is the Coffee Party” on the ballot next to his name. Winkler’s voter registration card is filled out to show that she is an Independent (not just a normal Declines to State voter). She wants “Independent candidate” on the ballot next to her name. But under the implementing law for California’s new election system, they cannot have those labels on the ballot. Yet, members of the six ballot-qualified parties can have their parties identified on the ballot. The proposed intervenors wish to become part of the lawsuit Field v Bowen, which has this case number in the State Supreme Court: S188436. Here is the brief of the original plaintiffs in the State Supreme Court. Massachusetts Libertarian Party Will Ask for Rehearing in Presidential Substitution CaseNovember 29th, 2010The Massachusetts Libertarian Party will ask for a rehearing before all the judges of the First Circuit, in Barr v Galvin. This is the case over whether Bob Barr should have been on the ballot in Massachusetts in November 2008 as the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. The only way that unqualified parties ever place nominees on the ballot in Massachusetts is with petitions that name the party’s candidates. In 2008 the Massachusetts Libertarian Party wanted to complete its petition early, so it listed George Phillies on the ballot as its presidential candidate. In 2007 the Secretary of State had told the party that it could list a stand-in, and replace him with the actual presidential nominee after the party’s national convention was over. When the party followed this advice, it was shocked to be told in 2008 that it could not replace Phillies with Barr. The party had then sued, and the U.S. District Court had ruled that Massachusetts’ behavior violated the Equal Protection part of the 14th amendment, because Massachusetts and all states let qualified parties revise their national tickets. The U.S. District Court ordered Massachusetts to list Barr on the ballot instead of Phillies. But on November 16, 2010, the First Circuit had reversed the U.S. District Court decision. Obviously the First Circuit’s decision doesn’t impact what has already happened, but it makes a bad situation for future presidential campaigns. The decision also impacts Maine and New Hampshire, two other states in the First Circuit that don’t permit presidential stand-ins. The Libertarian Party request for a rehearing is due December 14. U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Case on Extra Public Funding for Certain CandidatesNovember 29th, 2010On November 29, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that it had decided last Tuesday to hear the Arizona public funding case. Technically, it is two cases that the Court is combining: McComish v Bennett, 10-239; and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC v Bennett, 10-238. The issue is whether a state’s public funding for candidates program may provide extra public funding for candidates who have privately-funded opponents with a great deal of resources. This will be the second case the Supreme Court has ever taken that concerns public funding for candidates. The first was Buckley v Valeo, which upheld the presidential public funding system in 1976. See this story by Joan Biskupic. Billings Gazette Article on Surprising Strength of “Other” Vote in Wyoming in 2010November 28th, 2010The Billings Gazette has this comprehensive article about the surprising strength of Wyoming candidates who ran in 2010 outside the two major parties. The “other” vote for Wyoming Governor this year was 10.3%, the highest such percentage for that office, for candidates running outside the two major parties, since 1894. In 1894 the Peoples Party candidate for Governor had received 11.3%. The article notes that the new Wyoming Senate consists of 26 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
