<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ballot Access News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ballot-access.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ballot-access.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:21:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=491</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Virtual Unanimity that Texas Primary Cannot be Held on April 3</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/virtual-unanimity-that-texas-primary-cannot-be-held-on-april-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/virtual-unanimity-that-texas-primary-cannot-be-held-on-april-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:21:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24773</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This news story is typical of many recent stories in Texas. It says Texas will not be able to hold its primary on April 3. However, we will apparently need to wait until February 15 for a court order that settles the primary date.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.highlandernews.com/news_article.php?category_id=2&#038;article_id=2044">This</a> news story is typical of many recent stories in Texas.  It says Texas will not be able to hold its primary on April 3.  However, we will apparently need to wait until February 15 for a court order that settles the primary date.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/virtual-unanimity-that-texas-primary-cannot-be-held-on-april-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. District Court in Ohio Uses Equal Protection to Find that Certain Provisional Ballots Must be Counted</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/u-s-district-court-in-ohio-uses-equal-protection-to-find-that-certain-provisional-ballots-must-be-counted/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/u-s-district-court-in-ohio-uses-equal-protection-to-find-that-certain-provisional-ballots-must-be-counted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24769</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 8, a U.S. District Court in Cincinnati issued a 93-page opinion in Hunter v Hamilton County Board of Elections, 1:10-cv-820, a case over whether certain provisional ballots should have been counted in Hamilton County in the November 2010 election. The court ruled that some of the provisional ballots should be counted. The election [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On February 8, a U.S. District Court in Cincinnati issued a 93-page <a href="http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/HUNTER-dct.pdf">opinion</a> in Hunter v Hamilton County Board of Elections, 1:10-cv-820, a case over whether certain provisional ballots should have been counted in Hamilton County in the November 2010 election.  The court ruled that some of the provisional ballots should be counted.  The election between the Republican and Democratic candidates for Juvenile Court Judge had been so close, there is some probability that the uncounted provisional ballots will determine who won.</p>
<p>Ohio law says that provision ballots cast in the wrong precinct should not be counted.  However, Hamilton County elections officials nevertheless counted some provisional ballots that had been cast in the wrong precinct, but wouldn&#8217;t count certain other provisional ballots that had been cast in the wrong precinct.  The votes had issue had been cast at locations in which several precincts were voting in the same building.  Polling place officials had misinformed the voters about where to deposit their ballots.  The decision says for procedural reasons, the court is unable to rule on the constitutionality of the law that says provisional ballots must be cast in the proper precinct.  But, relying on Equal Protection, the court orders the votes to be counted.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/u-s-district-court-in-ohio-uses-equal-protection-to-find-that-certain-provisional-ballots-must-be-counted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Santorum&#8217;s Ballot Position in Indiana Republican Presidential Primary Still Unresolved</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/santorums-ballot-position-in-indiana-republican-presidential-primary-still-unresolved/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/santorums-ballot-position-in-indiana-republican-presidential-primary-still-unresolved/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24767</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indiana requires 4,500 signatures to get on a presidential primary ballot, and 500 in each U.S. House district. According to this story, Rick Santorum is fighting a ruling that he failed to submit 500 valid signatures in the 7th district.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indiana requires 4,500 signatures to get on a presidential primary ballot, and 500 in each U.S. House district.  According to <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57372141-503544/santorum-continues-fight-to-get-on-indiana-ballot/">this</a> story, Rick Santorum is fighting a ruling that he failed to submit 500 valid signatures in the 7th district.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/santorums-ballot-position-in-indiana-republican-presidential-primary-still-unresolved/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Four Georgia Senators Introduce Bill to Require Petition Signers to Show Government Photo-ID</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/four-georgia-senators-introduce-bill-to-require-petition-signers-to-show-government-photo-id/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/four-georgia-senators-introduce-bill-to-require-petition-signers-to-show-government-photo-id/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four Georgia State Senators, all Republicans, have introduced SB 377. It would require that no one could sign any type of ballot access petition, without first showing the circulator a government-photo ID. The circulator of the petition would be required to certify under penalty of perjury that everyone who signed his or her petition showed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Four Georgia State Senators, all Republicans, have introduced SB 377.  It would require that no one could sign any type of ballot access petition, without first showing the circulator a government-photo ID.  The circulator of the petition would be required to certify under penalty of perjury that everyone who signed his or her petition showed one of these:  (1) a Georgia drivers license; (2) a Georgia state ID card; (3) a U.S. passport; (4) a government employee photo-ID; (5) a U.S. military ID; (6) a tribal photo-ID.</p>
<p>The four sponsors are Senators Buddy Carter of Pooler, Tommie Williams of Lyons, Joshua McKoon of Columbus, and Judson Hill of Marietta.  In Georgia, candidates running in Democratic and Republican primaries never need to circulate any petition in order to get on the ballot, assuming they pay the filing fee.</p>
<p>Such a law, if enacted, would make it far more difficult to obtain signatures.  Many signatures are collected in parks and beaches, where many of the signers may not have their wallets or purses with them.  Furthermore, the law would slow the petitioning process, and also make it more difficult to persuade people to sign.  Also, thousands of people don&#8217;t possess any of those documents and would lose their constitutional right to sign a petition.  As far as is known, there has never been a law like this enacted in any state.  Thanks to Garland Favorito for this news.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/four-georgia-senators-introduce-bill-to-require-petition-signers-to-show-government-photo-id/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alabama Bill to Vastly Increase &#8220;No-Politics&#8221; Zone at Polling Places on Election Day</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/alabama-bill-to-vastly-increase-no-politics-zone-at-polling-places-on-election-day/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/alabama-bill-to-vastly-increase-no-politics-zone-at-polling-places-on-election-day/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Currently, Alabama law permits petitioning and other activity at the polls on election day, as long as the petitioners or canvassers are at least 30 feet from the polling location. Representative Jack Williams (R-Birmingham) has introduced HB 44, to increase the prohibited zone to 150 feet from the polling location.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Currently, Alabama law permits petitioning and other activity at the polls on election day, as long as the petitioners or canvassers are at least 30 feet from the polling location.  Representative Jack Williams (R-Birmingham) has introduced HB 44, to increase the prohibited zone to 150 feet from the polling location.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/alabama-bill-to-vastly-increase-no-politics-zone-at-polling-places-on-election-day/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alejandrina Cabrera Loses Qualifications Case in Arizona Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/alejandrina-cabrera-loses-qualifications-case-in-arizona-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/alejandrina-cabrera-loses-qualifications-case-in-arizona-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24760</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Late on February 7, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a two-page order, keeping Alejandrina Cabrera off the ballot for city council of San Luis, Arizona. The Court said it would explain its reasoning later. Cabrera was also kept off the ballot by the lower court, because the lower court had ruled that she doesn&#8217;t speak [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Late on February 7, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a two-page order, keeping Alejandrina Cabrera off the ballot for city council of San Luis, Arizona.  The Court said it would explain its reasoning later.  Cabrera was also kept off the ballot by the lower court, because the lower court had ruled that she doesn&#8217;t speak English well enough to comply with a state law that says public officials must speak English.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/alejandrina-cabrera-loses-qualifications-case-in-arizona-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Link to Missouri Presidential Primary Election Returns</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/link-to-missouri-presidential-primary-election-returns/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/link-to-missouri-presidential-primary-election-returns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:35:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Missouri Secretary of State&#8217;s web page has election returns for the presidential primaries. Use this link. Ten percent of the precincts have reported, and Rick Santorum is leading in the Republican primary.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Missouri Secretary of State&#8217;s web page has election returns for the presidential primaries.  Use <a href="http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/allresults.asp?eid=336">this</a> link.  Ten percent of the precincts have reported, and Rick Santorum is leading in the Republican primary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/link-to-missouri-presidential-primary-election-returns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>North Carolina Presidential Primary Candidates Announced</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/north-carolina-presidential-primary-candidates-announced/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/north-carolina-presidential-primary-candidates-announced/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:31:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 7, the North Carolina State Board of Elections said these presidential candidates will be on presidential primary ballots: the Democratic Party ballot will only contain President Obama&#8217;s name; the Republican Party ballot will list Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum; and the Libertarian Party ballot will list Roger Gary, R. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On February 7, the North Carolina State Board of Elections said these presidential candidates will be on presidential primary ballots:  the Democratic Party ballot will only contain President Obama&#8217;s name; the Republican Party ballot will list Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum; and the Libertarian Party ballot will list Roger Gary, R. J. Harris, Gary Johnson, Carl Person, Bill Still, and Lee Wrights.</p>
<p>North Carolina&#8217;s Board of Elections asks the party leadership to tell them which names to list.  The party leaders are supposed to choose candidates who are discussed in the media.  Any candidate not chosen by the party leadership can still run, but he or she needs 10,000 signatures of party members.</p>
<p>This will be the first time North Carolina has ever held a presidential primary for a party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties.  Thanks to Brian Irving for this news.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/north-carolina-presidential-primary-candidates-announced/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>San Francisco Supervisors Postpone Vote on Instant Runoff Voting</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/san-francisco-supervisors-postpone-vote-on-instant-runoff-voting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/san-francisco-supervisors-postpone-vote-on-instant-runoff-voting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 7, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors postponed consideration of two proposal concerning Instant Runoff Voting until February 14. One amendment abolishes IRV; the other expands the number of choices for a voter in a single race, beyond just first, second and third choice. If either or both pass on February 14, then [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On February 7, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors postponed consideration of two proposal concerning Instant Runoff Voting until February 14.  One amendment abolishes IRV; the other expands the number of choices for a voter in a single race, beyond just first, second and third choice.  If either or both pass on February 14, then they would go on the ballot for voters to decide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/san-francisco-supervisors-postpone-vote-on-instant-runoff-voting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arizona Legislative Committee Advances Bill to Eliminate Public Funding for Candidates</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/arizona-legislative-committee-advances-bill-to-eliminate-public-funding-for-candidates/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/arizona-legislative-committee-advances-bill-to-eliminate-public-funding-for-candidates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:57:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=24750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 6, the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee passed SCR 1021 by a vote of 6-2. If the legislature passes the bill, then the voters will be asked in November 2012 whether they wish to cut off funds for the state&#8217;s program for public funding for candidates for state office.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On February 6, the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee passed SCR 1021 by a vote of 6-2.  If the legislature passes the bill, then the voters will be asked in November 2012 whether they wish to cut off funds for the state&#8217;s program for public funding for candidates for state office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/07/arizona-legislative-committee-advances-bill-to-eliminate-public-funding-for-candidates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

