Newark Star-Ledger Story About New Jersey Lawsuit to Let Independents Vote in Primaries Without Joining a Party

The Newark Star-Ledger has this story about Balsam v Guadagno, the federal lawsuit filed on March 5 on behalf of some voters who want to vote in party primaries but who don’t want to join those parties, not even for one day.

New Jersey lets independent voters vote in partisan primaries, but if they do, they are then entered on the voter registration records as members of the party whose primary ballot they chose. They are free to fill out a new voter registration form, regaining independent status, as soon as they have voted in the primary.

Ironically, independent voters in New Jersey have more choices on primary day than members of qualified parties. On primary day, registered party members can only choose the primary ballot of the party they are registered with; they can’t change party affiliation on primary day.

Alabama Supreme Court Rules 7-2 that Secretary of State Has No Duty to Examine Constitutional Qualifications of Presidential Candidates

On March 21, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Alabama Secretary of State has no duty to examine the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates. McInnish and Goode v Bennett, 1120465. Here is the Opinion.

The case originated in state court on October 11, 2012. It was filed by individuals who asserted that the Secretary of State should not print any presidential candidate on a primary or general election ballot without first determining if the candidate meets the constitutional qualifications. The court majority refused to issue an opinion. However, two justices wrote separately to say explain why they believe the plaintiffs should not prevail. Justice Michael F. Bolin wrote a 25-page opinion, saying that nothing in Alabama law requires the Secretary of State to investigate presidential qualifications. That opinion also says the plaintiffs should have filed the case much earlier. Justice Tommy Bryan wrote a two-page opinion agreeing with Justice Bolin.

Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote a 44-page dissent, which expresses the opinion that the Secretary of State took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that oath implies that, as chief election officer, she had a responsibility to examine the qualifications of all presidential candidates. Justice Tom Parker wrote a 3-page dissent, agreeing with Moore, except that the Secretary’s duty is only to examine qualifications after a challenge has been filed.

All justices seemed to agree that the plaintiffs had standing. That is because one of the plaintiffs is Virgil Goode, who was on the Alabama general election ballot as an independent presidential candidate. Generally, courts find that candidates have standing to challenge the qualifications of their opponents. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

Colorado Bill to Revise Recall Election Law Contradictions

Some Colorado Democratic Senators have introduced SB 158, to deal with election law problems uncovered in last year’s legislative recall elections. See this story. The Colorado Supreme Court had ruled that one law, requiring voters to vote on whether the officer should be recalled if they wish to vote on who should replace the recalled officer (if the recall succeeds), is unconstitutional. Therefore, SB 158 deletes that requirement. That part of the bill is not controversial.

The other part of the bill tries to get around that fact that the State Constitution says candidates can file to be on a recall ballot only ten days before the recall election is to be held. The bill does not attempt to revise the State Constitution; such a move would require a proposed Constitutional revision, and the voters would need to approve it. Instead, the bill defines “election day” to be the day the recall election was called.

New Filings in Ohio Libertarian Party Primary Ballot Access Case

New filings entered on March 20 and March 21 in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted include documents explaining that the party’s appeal to the Sixth Circuit need not be decided immediately. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson issued a supplemental order on March 20, which says that if the Sixth Circuit reverses him and puts the statewide Libertarian candidates on the party’s primary ballot, there is ample time to do that.

This is because some counties in Ohio use touch-screen ballots. A name can be added to a ballot on a touch-screen computer only days before the election is to be held. The Ohio primary is May 6. Because there are no declared write-in candidates for Governor in the Ohio Libertarian primary (and it is too late for any to emerge now), and because Earl is the only candidate who filed a petition to be on the primary ballot, if his name is added to the electronic ballot shortly before the primary, he will the primary winner by default. He only needs one vote to be declared the victor. Normally, when a candidate is left off the ballot in most parts of the state, that is a serious blow; but in this case, it is not.

The attorney for the individual who challenged Earl’s petition filed a brief on March 21. That brief makes the same point, and says there is no time emergency. The brief also defends the constitutionality of the Ohio law that requires circulators to list their employer on each petition sheet. The challenger’s brief says that the privacy of circulators is not injured by that requirement, because anyone can always look at the candidate’s financial disclosure report and find out the name of the individual or group paying for the petition. But this argument cuts the other way. If the state’s interest in knowing who paid for the petitioning can be satisfied by the candidate’s disclosure report, why does the state also need this information on each petition sheet?

Hawaii Bill to Greatly Enlarge Public Funding of Campaigns Passes House, But is Defeated in Senate Committee

On March 4, the Hawaii House passed HB 2533, to greatly expand the public financing program. However, on March 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against the bill, so it won’t pass in this legislative session.

Hawaii already has public funding, but the amounts that qualifying candidates can receive are small. Candidates for Governor can only receive an amount equal to 10% of the expenditure limit for that office, and candidates for the legislature can only receive 15%. In 2012, only ten candidates for the legislature participated in the program, and none of them received as much as $2,000.

The bill would have provided that any candidate for the State House who receives $5 contributions from at least 200 registered votes in his or her district can receive approximately $33,000. One reason the bill was defeated in the Senate Committee was the need to hire additional state employees to administer the program, including checking to see whether donors are registered voters in the correct district. Thanks to the Center for Competitive Progress for news about the bill.