Montana Case on Independent Corporate Expenditures Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

February 10th, 2012

On February 10, three Montana corporations asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let them make independent expenditures in the 2012 election. The case is American Tradition Partnership, Inc., v Attorney General of the State of Montana, no number assigned yet. Here is the document.

On December 30, 2011, the Montana Supreme Court had ruled 5-2 that Montana’s law, making it illegal for corporations to make independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates for state office, is constitutional. This decision seems to contradict the U.S. Supreme Court opinion Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, issued in 2010, and of course the request to the U.S. Supreme Court points this out. The document to the U.S. Supreme Court is not only a request that the U.S. Supreme Court take the case, but that the Court also issue a stay of the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling while the case is under consideration. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news. UPDATE: the U.S. Supreme Court has already asked Montana to respond, and that response is due February 15, only five days from now. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the update.



Eliot Ackerman Clarifies that Goal of Americans Elect is not Necessarily to Nominate a Centrist

February 10th, 2012

Eliot Ackerman, Chief Operating Officer of Americans Elect, has this interview in NextGenJournal, an on-line magazine for young voters. The very first sentence spoken by Ackerman in the interview is, “I don’t think this is just about the candidates or centrism; this is about getting an independent ticket in the race.” What Ackerman said is consistent with Americans Elect bylaws. The Americans Elect rules have never mentioned the word “centrism”, and has never said the goal is to put a centrist in the race. Instead, Americans Elect rules required a balanced ticket, but any Democrat paired with a Republican, or vice versa, is “deemed” balanced by the Americans Elect rules.

Nevertheless, many press accounts over the last few months have falsely asserted that Americans Elect will only nominate “centrists.”

Two Courts Heard Libertarian Party Election Law Cases This Week

February 10th, 2012

On February 9, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Libertarian Political Association v Galvin, sj 2011-0348. The issue is whether Massachusetts law lets unqualified parties use a stand-in presidential candidate on its ballot access petition, and then, if the stand-in withdraws, whether the state party can replace him or her with the actual presidential nominee of that party.

The state takes the position that unqualified parties can never replace the person listed on the petition with anyone else. Near the end of the hearing, when the attorney for the Secretary of State was speaking, Justice Ralph Gants asked what would happen if the person listed on the petition for either President or Vice-President were to die. Justice Gants wanted to use a concrete example, so he asked what would have happened if the person listed for vice-president on Ross Perot’s 1992 petition were to die after the petition had been submitted, and there was little or no time remaining for a new petition to be submitted by the deadline. The attorney for the Secretary of State said the Perot campaign would have been “out of luck”. That answer was the only logical response that could have been given, but it illustrated the problems with the state’s position. A decision will probably come fairly quickly.

On February 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, heard arguments in Libertarian Party v D.C. Board of Elections, over whether the U.S. Constitution requires the Board to count valid write-in votes for president at the general election. Judge David S. Tatel’s comments and questions seemed to indicate that he believes that the Board of Elections’ interest in saving money is more important than the right of voters to have their valid votes counted, but Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh seemed to have the opposite opinion. The D.C. Board already counts other kinds of write-ins. For example, in 2004, the D.C. courts ruled that the Board must count write-in votes in the Green Party’s primary, in a case called Best v D.C. Board of Elections, 852 A.2d 915. The third judge on the panel was Merrick Garland, and it was not easy to ascertain which way he leans.

U.S. Supreme Court Puts North Carolina Ballot Access Case on Conference for February 24

February 10th, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has put Greene v Bartlett, 11-868, on its conference of February 24, 2012. The Court won’t say whether it will take this case until Monday, February 27, at the earliest. The case challenges North Carolina’s ballot access procedure for independent candidates to get on the ballot for U.S. House. The procedure is so difficult that no independent candidate for U.S. House has ever appeared on a government-printed ballot, and North Carolina has been using government-printed ballots since 1901. The law requires approximately 20,000 valid signatures.

The lower courts upheld the law, partly because in 2010, the SEIU union successfully circulated such a petition. However, the candidate named on that petition had not consented to run, and he withdrew. Facts about the SEIU petition success are not in the record because the petition circulated after all the evidence in the Greene case had been filed. Chances are, the SEIU spent between $50,000 and $100,000 on the petition drive.

In the meantime, the North Carolina legislature has gone into session and might pass ballot access reform. HB 32, which lowers petition requirements for independent candidates and for unqualified political parties, passed the House on June 7, 2011, and is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislature seems slow to act on any bills this month. Even the omnibus election law bill, which is clearly favored to pass, has not moved yet this month. The omnibus election law bill, SB 47, makes several changes desired by the Republican leadership of the legislature, including ending the process by which the Democratic Party is always listed on the top spot on the ballot, and restoring partisan judicial elections, and eliminating the straight-ticket device.

Santorum Will Appear on Indiana Ballot Unless a Voter Challenges his Petition by February 17

February 10th, 2012

According to this news story, Rick Santorum will appear on the Indiana Republican presidential primary ballot unless any voter challenges his petition before February 17. Marion County election officials checked his petition and determined that he was short 24 signatures in the 7th U.S. House district. The law requires 500 signatures from each U.S. House district. But, in Indiana, primary petitions are presumed valid if no one challenges.

British Petition for House of Commons Illustrated; Requires 10 Signatures

February 9th, 2012

As has been said many times over the years by this site, Great Britain only requires 10 signatures for a candidate to get on a ballot to run for House of Commons. Here is a copy of the British petition form. Scroll down to page two. Candidates also need a filing fee of 500 pounds, which is returned if the candidate polls at least 5%. The British term for filing fee is “deposit.” Thanks to Charles McKeon for the link.

Lengthy American Prospect Article on Americans Elect

February 9th, 2012

The American Prospect has this lengthy, and somewhat grumpy, article about Americans Elect. The author is Harold Meyerson.

American Prospect also has this shorter piece, pointing out that so far more Americans Elect members support Ron Paul than any other presidential prospect.

California Bill, Altering Elections for Party Office, Has Hearing February 21

February 9th, 2012

The California State Senate Elections Committee will hear AB 1200 on Tuesday, February 21. This is a bill to revise procedures for elections for County Central Committee. It has an urgency clause, and will take effect immediately if signed into law. The bill is of some concern to the Green Party, the Peace & Freedom Party, and the American Independent Party, all of which hold elections for party office. The Libertarian Party, and Americans Elect, do not hold such elections in government-administered elections.

Idaho House Votes to Abolish Presidential Primary

February 9th, 2012

On February 8, the Idaho House passed HB 391 by a vote of 56-12. It abolishes the state’s presidential primary, and takes effect this year. The primary is set for May 15.

Assuming the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, 2012 will be the first year since 1972 that Idaho has not had a presidential primary. The rationale for abolishing it this year is that the Democratic and Republican Parties are holding caucuses to choose the delegates, and therefore the presidential primary is not binding. But, of course, presidential primaries do have influence on public opinion, even when they aren’t being used to select delegates. The Missouri presidential primary of February 7 is evidence of that.

Virginia House Passes Bill Postponing Non-Presidential Primary from June to August

February 9th, 2012

On February 9, the Virginia House unanimously passed HB 736, which moves the 2012 non-presidential primary from June to August 7. The bill only takes effect if the state’s U.S. House district boundaries aren’t settled by April 3, 2012. The bill also moves the petition deadline for non-presidential independent and minor party candidates from June to August.

Virginia doesn’t have state legislative elections this year. Legislators are elected in odd years. The non-presidential primary in even years is for Congress and local office.

« 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.