Arizona Bill Signed for Tea Party License Plates

April 30th, 2011

On April 28, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1402, which adds ten new categories of specialized license plates, including a “Don’t Tread on Me” plate that will raise money for an Arizona Tea Party Committee (see section 28-2439.01 of the bill). Groups that wish to profit by any of these specialized license plates take some risk, however. They must pay $32,000 to the state to start the process. Then the state manufactures and sells the license plate for $25, and the sponsoring group receives $18 for each plate sold. Obviously, if the plate is unpopular, the sponsoring groups may lose money.

The part of the law concerning the Tea Party says that the Tea Party Committee’s mission is to bring together, empower, and train tea party groups, to work for these goals: (1) promoting the Constitution; (2) promoting limited government; (3) protecting state sovereignty; (4) standing for the security of borders with other nations. Thanks to Ken Bush for this news.



Americans Elect Explains Why it is Using More Difficult Procedure to Qualify as a Party in California

April 30th, 2011

Americans Elect’s web page has this article, explaining why it is circulating a petition to qualify as a party in California, instead of using the easier registration method. California lets a new party qualify if it has registration equal to 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, or if it submits a petition signed by a number of voters equal to 10% of the last gubernatorial vote. Americans Elect is using the latter method.

Courts have unanimously invalidated ballot access petition requirements for new parties and independent candidates that exceed 5% of the number of registered voters. The California 10% petition has never been invalidated, however, because it is not mandatory. Groups are free to use the 1% registration method. The 10% petition method has been in the law since 1937 and it has only been used once, in the autumn of 1947 and the spring of 1948, by the Independent Progressive Party that ran Henry Wallace for President in 1948 (Wallace was a former vice-president of the United States). By contrast, since 1937, every other party that qualified in California has used the alternate 1% registration method. The newly-qualifying parties that used the 1% registration method are the Townsend Party in 1938, the American Independent Party in 1967, the Peace & Freedom Party in 1967, the Libertarian Party in 1979, the Green Party in 1991, the Natural Law Party in 1995, and the Reform Party in 1995.

Before 1937, groups could qualify as a party in California with a 1% petition.

Indiana Legislature Passes Bill, Clarifying that Republican Party is Still Ballot-Qualified Even if its Secretary of State Nominee is Found to have Been Ineligible

April 30th, 2011

On April 29, the Indiana legislature passed HB 1242, an omnibus election law bill. One part of the bill clarifies that even if Republican Secretary of State Charlie White is found to have been ineligible to run in 2010, the Republican Party is still ballot-qualified. Indiana defines “political party” as a group that polled at least 2% for Secretary of State. There is some possibility that White will be found ineligible to have run, because he may not have been registered to vote properly in 2010. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

If White is found ineligible, the Democratic nominee from 2010, who placed second, will assume the office. But if White resigns before that happens, then Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, can appoint a replacement. Or if White is found guilty of the crime of voting at a precinct at which he did not live, the Governor could replace him. However, White is fighting to clear his name and is not expected to resign.

Alicia Garza & Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont Article about Big Money Campaign Against Instant Runoff Voting in San Francisco

April 30th, 2011

Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont and Alicia Garza have this article in New America Media, explaining that the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce have been carrying on a public relations campaign against Instant Runoff Voting in San Francisco and Oakland. The article does not mention the lawsuit against San Francisco’s Instant Runoff Voting system, but that lawsuit is also part of the campaign against IRV. It is called Dudum v City and County of San Francisco.

The same law firm, Nielsen Merksamer, that is trying to overturn IRV in San Francisco, is the same law firm defending California’s top-two election system in the lawsuits Field v Bowen and Chamness v Bowen. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link to the article.

Arizona Governor Signs Bill that Puts Green Party on 2012 Ballot

April 30th, 2011

On the evening of April 28, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2304, an omnibus election law bill. Among many other provisions, it says that when a party qualifies for the ballot, it gets the next two elections, not just the next election. Because the Arizona Green Party had successfully petitioned in 2010, it is now automatically on the 2012 ballot, even though it didn’t meet the already-existing requirements for a party to remain on the ballot (that it poll 5% for Governor, or that it have registration of at least two-thirds of 1% of the state total).

The bill also legalizes out-of-state circulators for all types of petitions, not just petitions for independent presidential candidates. The legislature’s web page still does not show that HB 2304 has been signed, but this newspaper article carries the news of the Governor’s actions on Friday evening relative to bills.

U.S. District Court Denies Relief to North Carolina Independent Candidate who Argued one Petition is Enough

April 30th, 2011

On April 28, a U.S. District Court in North Carolina declined to provide any relief to Mark Brody, an independent candidate for the legislature in both 2008 and 2010. North Carolina has the nation’s 3rd highest petition requirement for independent candidates for the legislature, 4% of the number of registered voters. Only Georgia and South Carolina, which require 5% of the number of registered voters, are harder. Generally, 4% of the number of registered voters is more onerous than Illinois’ requirement of 5% of the last vote cast.

Brody had successfully met the 4% petition test in 2008, and he had appeared on the ballot in November 2008 and polled 30% of the vote in a two-person race. He wanted to run for the same seat in 2010, and he had sued to win an exemption from re-petitioning in 2010. He argued that independent candidates are discriminated against, relative to political parties. In virtually every state, a party that polled a certain share of the vote in the previous election is then automatically on the ballot in the next election. But neither North Carolina, or any state, gives an independent candidate credit for a high share of the vote in a past election, so as to exempt him or her from petitioning again in the next election. The only exception is that Georgia lets an independent candidate who was elected avoid the petition when that independent comes up for re-election.

The judge said that he was sympathetic, and thought the case has logic on its side, but that he would still not rule in Brody’s favor because there are no favorable precedents for this type of case. He encouraged Brody to appeal. The case is Brody v North Carolina State Board of Elections, western district, 3:10-cv-383. Thanks to Jordon Greene for this news.

Eighth Circuit Reinstates Minnesota Lawsuit against Law Criminalizing False Statements in Ballot Question Campaigns

April 30th, 2011

On April 28, the 8th circuit issued this 22-page opinion in 281 Care Committee v Arneson, 10-1558. In 2007, some groups opposed to certain local ballot measures to increase funding for public schools had sued in federal court, to overturn a Minnesota law that makes it a crime to knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth to make a false statement about a proposed ballot measure. They had sued after they had been accused of breaking the law. The U.S. District Court had dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds.

The 8th circuit said there are no procedural problems with this lawsuit, and sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for a decision on the merits. The 8th circuit wrote, “The First Amendment does not allow the courts of appeals to decide whether a category of speech, on the whole, tends to contain socially worthless information…We do not, of course, hold today that a state may never regulate false speech in this context. Rather, we hold that it may only do so when it satisfies the First Amendment test required for content-based speech restrictions: that any regulation be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.” This decision is a good sign for the pending lawsuits in various states in the 8th circuit against laws that make it illegal for out-of-state circulators to work. Such lawsuits are pending in South Dakota and Nebraska. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link.

Nevada to Hold Special U.S. House Election on September 13

April 29th, 2011

Because Dean Heller, the Congressmember from Nevada’s 2nd district, has been appointed to the U.S. Senate, his seat is now vacant and a special election will be held to replace him on September 13. But Nevada’s law on special U.S. House elections is so poorly written, no one knows if parties nominate candidates, or if candidates just file as individuals. The only thing known for sure is that there will be no primaries for the special election.

Ever since Nevada has been a state, it has never before had a vacancy in one of its U.S. House seats in the middle of a term.

California Governor Now Favors Putting Initiative on Ballot

April 29th, 2011

On April 28, California Governor Jerry Brown spoke in Los Angeles and said he now favors putting an initiative on the ballot to ask voters if they wish to make certain tax changes. See this story. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats in the legislature, who are backing three separate bills to make it more difficult to put initiatives on the ballot, will now stop supporting those bills. The bills are SB168, to make it illegal to pay circulators on a per-signature basis; AB 481, to make all initiative circulators (volunteers and paid workers alike) wear buttons; and AB 651, to require elaborate paperwork for companies that hire paid circulators.

Political Science Professor Doubts California’s “Top-Two” System Will Produce More Moderate Politicians

April 29th, 2011

The April 28 Los Angeles Times carries this letter from UCLA Political Scientist Thomas Schwartz, about California’s new “top-two” election system. Schwartz is a specialist in social choice theory and mathematical political science. He is the author of “The Logic of Collective Choice” and “The Art of Logical Reasoning.”

The link goes to all the letters published that day. Professor Schwartz’ letter is the second one down. The letter also chides the Los Angeles Times for telling its readers, in an editorial on April 25, that the top-two system is the same system as the non-partisan system used by all California cities and counties for elections for their own officials.

« Previous 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.