One of the candidates who is being removed from the ballot was running in the 13th State Senate district.  This is one of the most closely-balanced State Senate districts in Michigan.  Last time voters chose a State Senator in this district, in 2006, the vote for the two major parties had been:  Republican 57,204; Democratic 56,484.  Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

This seems peculiar, but it spares any of the parties from the task of choosing their own nominee for the 2-month term, so the decision will probably will go unchallenged.

Ohio uses partisan primaries to determine who each party nominates for judge, so the partisan affiliation of candidates for judge is obvious at the primary elections.  It is only the general election at which party labels are not present.  Ohio is the only state with a system with that characteristic.  Michigan is somewhat similar.  In Michigan, party conventions nominate candidates for State Supreme Court Justice, and then the voters elect them on a November ballot which also lacks party labels.

The lawsuit also attacks rules that make it impossible for candidates for judge to identify their party identification “after the day of the primary.”

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.

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.

The last time a party with the name “Christian Party” appeared on a statewide ballot was in Washington state in 1936.

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.