On December 21, a U.S. District Court will hold a trial in Bernbeck v Gale, 4:10-cv-3001. This is the case that challenges Nebraska’s ban on out-of-state petition circulators, and also challenges the state’s ban on paying circulators on a per-signature basis. The trial is not expected to last beyond one day. Most of the facts are not in dispute. Plaintiffs have already submitted a great deal of evidence showing that these two restrictions substantially increase the cost of getting initiatives on the ballot. This particular case concerns an initiative in one small city, Stanton.
A somewhat similar case is pending in Nebraska called Citizens in Charge v Gale, but it is not as far along in the process. That case contains an issue that is not involved in the Bernbeck case. The Citizens in Charge case challenges the ban on out-of-state circulators, but it also challenges a Nebraska law that sets up a county distribution requirement for statewide non-presidential independent candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court back in 1969 ruled that statewide petitions cannot have county distribution requirements. Nebraska already had one such county-distribution requirement declared unconstitutional in 1984. But the 2007 session of the legislature didn’t seem to remember that, and passed another one.
Yes! Let’s hope that the judge makes the right decision to repeal these outlandish ballot access laws.
Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969)
One of the few *modern* election law opinions in SCOTUS that makes some sense.
The Moore case was noted in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 107 (2000).
Plaintiff lawyers MUST demand $$$ damages against all of the MORON defendants in election law cases — to cause such MORONS to have some minimal respect for constitutional rights.
What alleged disputed facts are there in most election law cases ???
— i.e. somehow the trial Judge determines some sort of new facts — not blatantly obvious from the earlier paperwork ???
ANY trials by jury any more in ANY election law case ???
A disputed fact in this case is whether petitioning restrictions really cause the process to be considerably more expensive for the proponents of the petition.