Green, Libertarian Parties Almost Finished with Maryland 2012 Petition Drives

December 29th, 2010

The Maryland Green Party has 14,613 signatures on its petition to be on the ballot in 2012 and 2014.  The Maryland Libertarian Party has 10,200 signatures on its petition.  The requirement is 10,000.  Both parties have rushed to finish these petitions, because if they submit at least 10,000 raw signatures by January 4, 2011, the state will let the voters who are registered in those parties continue to be registered that way.  Otherwise, those voters will all be converted to independents, unless they choose another qualified party.

It is likely the Green Party already has enough signatures.  The Libertarian Party will have three weeks after January 4, 2011, to make sure they have 10,000 valid signatures.  The Constitution Party has also started its Maryland petition drive.



Congress Adjourns Without Passing Bill Restricting Partisan Activities of Secretaries of State

December 29th, 2010

Congress adjourned on December 22 without having passed HR512, the bill to prohibit the chief Election Officer of any state from taking an active part in the campaign of any candidates for federal office.  The House had passed the bill easily on September 28, by a vote of 296-129.  But the Senate merely referred the bill to the Rules and Administration Committee, where it made no further headway.

First Circuit Denies Rehearing in Massachusetts Presidential Substitution Case

December 29th, 2010

On December 28, the same three judges who ruled against the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts on November 16, refused to reconsider their ruling, in Barr v Galvin, 09-2426.  This is the case over whether an unqualified party can use a stand-in presidential candidate on its petition, and then have the stand-in later withdraw and be replaced by the actual presidential nominee.

Some California Legislators Likely to Lose Seats in 2012 due to Redistricting Commission

December 29th, 2010

This article in California’s Capitol Weekly newspaper explains that several California legislators are very likely to be defeated in 2012 (if they try to run for re-election), because of the new Citizens Redistricting Commission process for drawing boundaries for the next decade’s legislative districts.

The article does not mention another factor that will injure incumbents.  Ever since 1879, the California Constitution has required candidates for the legislature to have lived in the district for at least one year before running.  However, this provision has not been enforced since the 1970′s, when California officials decided to ignore it because they believe the U.S. Constitution doesn’t permit duration of residency requirements for candidates.  But a lawsuit now pending in the State Court of Appeals, Fuller v Bowen, C065237, could force the state to start enforcing it.  Duration of residency requirements are especially tough for incumbents in times of redistricting.  The article notes that many legislators may be forced to move, a process that is far more difficult when there is a duration of residency requirement.  The lawsuit lost in Superior Court, because the Superior Court also ruled that the U.S. Constitution bans duration of residency requirements.  But this is a very dubious idea.  The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed New Hampshire’s 7-year duration of residency requirement in 1975, for candidates for State Senate, in a case called Sununu v Stark.  Also the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 in Clements in Fashing that there is no constitutional right to be a candidate.

Two Rhode Island Legislators Want December Run-Offs When No One gets 50% in November

December 29th, 2010

Two Rhode Island legislators say they will introduce a proposed state constitutional amendment in 2011, providing that when no one in a November election for federal or state office gets as much as 50% of the total vote, the state will hold a run-off in December.  See this story.

One wonders if the two legislators are aware of alternate election systems that would solve the problem they perceive, without adding to the expense and probable poor voter turnout in their proposed December run-offs.

The article mentions that the Attorney General’s race last month is an example of a race in which no one got 50% in November.  In that race, the vote was:  Democartic 43.1%; Republican 29.0%; Moderate Party 14.4%; two independent candidates, one of whom polled 9.6% and the other 4.0%.  Thanks to Tony Roza for the link.

December 2010 Ballot Access News Print Edition

December 28th, 2010

Ballot Access News
December 1, 2010 – Volume 26, Number 7


This issue was originally printed on white paper.


Table of Contents

  1. 2010 WAS BEST MID-TERM ELECTION FOR MINOR PARTY AND INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES IN OVER 75 YEARS
  2. WASHINGTON TRIAL ON “TOP-TWO” POSTPONED
  3. TENNESSEE DOESN’T APPEAL BALLOT ACCESS RULING
  4. TWO STATE COURTS BOLSTER WRITE-INS
  5. FIRST CIRCUIT RULES AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL SUBSTITUTION
  6. POLITICAL PARTY RIGHTS VICTORY
  7. NEW YORK CITY EASES BALLOT ACCESS
  8. OKLAHOMA VOTERS EASE BALLOT ACCESS FOR INITIATIVES
  9. D.C. EASES VOTE TEST
  10. OCTOBER 2010 REGISTRATION TOTALS
  11. 2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
  12. DAVID NOLAN DIES
  13. WELL-FINANCED NEW POLITICAL PARTY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
  14. MORE DEBATES ARE INCLUSIVE
  15. NADER LOSES LAWSUIT AGAINST DEMOCRATS OVER 2004 BEHAVIOR
  16. MINOR PARTY PARTISAN WINS
  17. INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING NEWS
  18. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

Read the rest of this entry »

U.S. District Court in Alaska Dismisses Last Remaining Lawsuit over Alaska U.S. Senate Vote Count

December 28th, 2010

On December 28, U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline issued this 14-page ruling in Miller v Treadwell, 3:10-cv-0252.  Although Joe Miller had already lost in the Alaska Supreme Court over the vote count for U.S. Senate, he had some distinct claims that had been pending in the federal case.  However, the federal court rejected those arguments.

Miller first argued that the U.S. Constitution requires that only state legislatures may create laws relating to federal elections, and that when the Alaska Division of Elections decided that misspelled write-in votes are valid, that was effectively a revision of state laws and practices, and it was invalid because only legislatures can change laws and practices.  Judge Beistline did not disagree with Miller’s statement of that argument, but the judge ruled that the Division of Elections did not change the rules.  In effect, the law has always allowed misspelled write-ins.  The judge wrote “The Alaska Supreme Court did not make a finding clearly contrary to the face of the statute…what we have before us is a poorly drafted state statute.  Wisdom would suggest that the Alaska legislature act to clarify it.”

Miller also argued in federal court that under Bush v Gore, the write-in tally was flawed because there were no clear standards, so not every voter was treated equally.  But Judge Beistline said every voter was treated equally, because all the write-ins were examined by one individual, the Director of the Elections office.  Finally, Miller argued in this case that he was not treated equally because not all of his votes were examined carefully.  But the judge said that the evidence shows that Elections Division workers did actually examine every ballot, not just the write-in ballots.  UPDATE:  the Alaska Elections Division has now certified Lisa Murkowski as the winner; see this story.

Court Hearing Set in Rahm Emanuel Residency Dispute

December 28th, 2010

A lower state court in Chicago will hear arguments on January 4, over whether Rahm Emanuel meets the Chicago residency requirement to run for Mayor.  Emanuel is currently on the ballot, but some voter-plaintiffs are trying to get him removed.  See this story.  Meanwhile, the Chicago Board of Elections still hasn’t resolved the challenge to the petition of Carol Moseley Braun, another candidate for Mayor.  The election is February 22.

Status of Republican Party Attempts to Obtain Party Registration via Courts in Two States

December 28th, 2010

The Republican Parties in two states, Idaho and South Carolina, are currently litigating whether they are constitutionally entitled to some procedure that will prevent adherents of other political parties from voting in Republican primaries.  In Idaho, all the briefs are submitted, and Judge B. Lynn Winmill could rule at any time.  That case is Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa, in U.S. District Court, 08-cv-165.

In South Carolina, the Greenville County Republican Party’s lawsuit is not as far along.  Discovery was completed last month and the briefs will have been submitted by January 31, 2011.  That case is Greenville County Republican Party Executive Committee v State of South Carolina, 6:10-cv-1407.  The case is in front of Judge J. Michelle Childs.

Neither Idaho nor South Carolina has ever had registration by party, so under current law, any voter on primary day is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never settled whether political parties in open primary states are entitled to some procedure that prevents loyalists of other political parties from voting in their primaries.  However, when the Oklahoma Libertarian Party tried to win the oppposite kind of ruling, it lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.  In that case, the Libertarian Party wanted to create an open primary for itself.  It desired that any registered voter ought to be free to ask for a Libertarian Party primary ballot.  Oklahoma is a state that has registration by party.  The party won in the 10th circuit, but in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and said it wouldn’t be fair to the major parties if the Libertarian Party could do that.  That ruling, Clingman v Beaver, has caused confusion, because until that ruling, the law seemed to be that parties were free to decide for themselves who can vote in their primaries.

Connecticut Asks U.S. Supreme Court for a Month’s Delay in Filing Response in Public Funding Case

December 27th, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next year whether to hear Green Party of Connecticut v Lenge, 10-795.  This the case on discriminatory public funding.  The state has asked to delay its response from January 14, 2011, to February 14, and the Court has granted the state’s request.

The Court will hear oral arguments in the other case involving public funding of candidates on March 28, 2011.  The other case is from Arizona, a state that does not discriminate against minor party and independent candidates in its public funding system.  The issue in the Arizona case is whether the system violates the Constitution by giving extra public funding to certain candidates, depending on the finances of that candidate’s privately-funded opponents.

« 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.