North Carolina Supreme Court Hears Redistricting Lawsuit

Posted on by
Reply

On January 6, 2014, the North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dickson v Rucho, 201 PA 12-2. The issue is whether the state’s U.S. House districts, and its state legislative districts, are valid. The lower state court had upheld the districts. The plaintiffs have several arguments, but their most important one is that the Republican majority deliberately put as many African-American voters in certain districts as possible, even to the extent of splitting precinct boundaries. This technique “wastes” Democratic votes, so that the other districts are more likely to choose Republicans.

In November 2012, Republicans won 9 U.S. House seats and Democrats won 4 seats in North Carolina. But Democrats got 2,218,357 votes for U.S. House and Republicans got 2,137,167. Three Libertarians also ran for U.S. House and got 24,142 votes. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.

Calitics Article Shows How California’s Top-Two Law Has Strengthened Major Party Organizations

Posted on by
Reply

David Atkins has this article in Calitics, showing how California’s Proposition 14, the top-two system, has strengthened the state’s major party organizations. The Atkins piece first talks about the U.S. House race, 31st district, in 2012, a story that is somewhat well-known. But then he discusses a little-known aspect of the law, its consequences for elections for party office.

Because there are no partisan primaries in mid-term years, the legislature in 2012 passed a bill giving 4-year terms, instead of 2-year terms, to county central committee members. They are only up for re-election in presidential years, when they can be put on the same partisan primary ballots used for the presidential primary. Giving these party officials 4-year terms instead of 2-year terms reduces internal democracy in the parties.

U.S. District Court Rules that Ohio’s Minor Parties May Remain on the Ballot for 2014

Posted on by
Reply

On January 7, U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Watson ruled that due process requires that Ohio not implement its new ballot access barriers for minor parties for the 2014 election. The 28-page opinion depends on the fact that the Ohio legislature did not pass the new requirements until November 2013, after various candidates of the minor parties had already been circulating petitions to place themselves on their own party’s primary ballot. The case is Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, southern district, 2:13cv-953.

The decision also depends on the fact that the new law doesn’t take effect until February 2014. The Republican majority in the legislature wanted the new requirements to take effect immediately, but the bill would have needed 60% in each House of the legislature to take effect immediately, and because some Republican legislators voted against the bill, the bill did not pass with 60% in the State House.

The decision says, “The Ohio Legislature moved the proverbial goalpost in the midst of the game. Stripping the Plaintiffs of the opportunity to participate in the 2014 primary in these circumstances would be patently unfair.”

Important Procedural Victory in Georgia Ballot Access Case

Posted on by
Reply

On January 6, the Eleventh Circuit issued an order in Green Party of Georgia v State of Georgia and Georgia Secretary of State, 13-11816. The Eleventh Circuit six-page order says that the U.S. District Court was wrong to dismiss the case, which is a challenge to the number of signatures needed for unqualified parties to get on the ballot for President. The Eleventh Circuit order sends the case back to the U.S. District Court, and tells that Court to re-hear the case, with the understanding that presidential ballot access has more constitutional protection than ballot access for other office.

The U.S. District Court Judge had dismissed the case before the state had even answered the Complaint. The U.S. District Court had said that because the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld Georgia’s ballot access laws in 1971 in Jenness v Fortson, therefore the current laws must be constitutional. But Jenness v Fortson did not concern a presidential election; it was filed over the requirements for minor party candidates to get on the ballot for Governor and U.S. House.

The Eleventh Circuit order is signed by Judges Gerald Tjoflat (a Ford appointee), Emmett Cox (a Reagan appointee), and Adelberto Jordan (an Obama appointee). Because Alabama is also in the Eleventh Circuit, this order will be helpful to the ballot access case pending in Alabama, Stein v Bennett. The Alabama case also concerns presidential elections. The issue in the Alabama case is the March petition deadline for parties that want to appear on the presidential ballot.

American Prospect Carries Lengthy Story About Working Families Party

Posted on by
Reply

The American Prospect has a long article about the Working Families Party and its national director, Dan Cantor. See it here. The story says the party will expand into the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania soon. The story also says that the party won’t necessarily try to get on the ballot under its own name in the future.

National Conference of State Legislatures Chart Shows Start Dates for 2014 Legislative Sessions

Posted on by
Reply

In most states, legislatures convene this month. The commonest start date among the states is January 13 or January 14. See this chart from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

There are bills to improve ballot access laws pending or expected to be introduced this year in Alabama, California, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. There could be many more states with helpful bills. Now is the time for activists to communicate with state legislators, asking for bills to improve the laws. There are problems with the ballot access laws in most states.