Channel 6 in Richmond, Virginia, has this story about Astrid Sarvis’ you tube, which talks about her husband’s exclusion from the October 24 debate. Especially interesting is the information that the two major party candidates had said they had to know who was in that debate two weeks beforehand, so they could properly prepare. As Rob Sarvis says in the story, he certainly wouldn’t need two weeks advance notice to get ready, if he were to be included.
On October 18, the forces who filed a referendum petition last month against Arizona’s HB 2305 sued three Arizona counties. The various counties are carrying out a validity check on the petition. The plaintiffs argue that the counties are disqualifying more signatures than they should. See this story.
If the referendum petition is successful, the voters will vote in November 2014 on whether or not to repeal HB 2305. HB 2305 is the omnibus election law bill that, among other things, made it extremely difficult for minor party members to get themselves on their own party’s primary ballot. It also makes it literally impossible for the smaller qualified parties to nominate anyone in their own primary by write-in vote.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch has a lengthy editorial about its recommendation for the Virginia gubernatorial race. The editorial is strongly critical of both major party nominees, and says it won’t endorse Rob Sarvis, the Libertarian, because he doesn’t have enough experience. It does, however, say that a vote on principle is not a wasted vote, which seems to be a faint hint that if the paper had endorsed anyone, it would have been Sarvis.
On October 20, Professor Larry Sabato, considered the leading expert on Virginia politics, tweeted that he has been observing Virginia gubernatorial elections since 1965, and he has never seen so much unhappiness with the two major party nominees. Thanks to Eric Garris for the news about the Sabato tweet, and to PoliticalWire for the link to the editorial.
UPDATE: on October 21, the Charlottesville Daily Progress endorsed a write-in vote for Bill Bolling for Governor. Bolling is the current Republican Lieutenant Governor, but he is not a candidate. Furthermore, although Virginia counts write-in votes for declared write-in presidential candidates, it doesn’t canvass the number of votes for write-in candidates for other office, unless the vote-counting equipment suggests that a write-in candidate might have won the election. The editorial does say, “A substantial vote for the Libertarian candidate (Rob Sarvis) also might serve to push the major parties into reform.”
FURTHER UPDATE: two weeks ago, a community forum for all three ballot-listed gubernatorial candidates was arranged in Richmond, so that is one venue at which Rob Sarvis will appear jointly with Ken Cuccinelli and Terry McAuliffe. The event is Saturday, October 26, between noon and 2 p.m. at the Virginia War Memorial Building in Richmond. The event is sponsored by Radio One and Channel 8 News.
Syracuse, New York elects a Mayor in a partisan election on November 5, 2013. The only candidates are Democratic incumbent Stephanie Miner, Green Party nominee Kevin Bott, and Conservative Party nominee Ian Hunter. Republicans did not nominate anyone.
According to this story in the Syracuse Post-Standard, famous conservative commentator Glenn Beck recently criticized Bott, although the criticism does not mention Bott’s candidacy.
The three candidates for Mayor have been invited to a debate on October 28. Bott and Hunter have accepted, but so far Mayor Miner has refused. The October 28 debate is the only one scheduled for this election.
In 2000, Arizona voters passed a ballot measure creating an Independent Redistricting Commission, which handles redistricting for U.S. House and state legislative districts. In 2012, the Arizona legislature filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that Article One of the U.S. Constitution requires that only state legislatures can draw U.S. House district maps. The case is Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 2:12cv-1211.
Article One, section 4, says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The Legislature argues this language means that (unless Congress intervenes), only state legislatures can draw U.S. House district maps. The Legislature says that the language doesn’t talk about state government in general, it says “legislature.”
On the other hand, the Independent Redistricting Commission argues that when the U.S. Constitution says “legislature”, it means any legislative process authorized by state law, and that for purposes of this part of the Constitution, the Independent Redistricting Commission is “the legislature.”
The case was originally being handled by U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt, a Reagan appointee. On August 14, 2013, Judge Rosenblatt determined that this case is suitable for a 3-judge court. On August 23, two more judges were appointed to the panel: Mary M. Schroeder, from the 9th circuit, a Carter appointee; and G. Murray Snow, a Bush Jr. appointee. On September 20, the legislature filed its brief; on October 18, the other side filed its brief.
One would think that after 224 years, the courts would have settled the meaning of the word “legislature” in Article One, but there are precedents suggesting support for each side, and the issue is not truly settled. The case has important implications for the redistricting process in many states, not just Arizona. It also has important implications for other areas of election law. For example, in Ohio in 2008, the Secretary of State promulgated regulations setting the petition for newly-qualifying parties at one-half of 1%, but a federal court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not permit anyone but the legislature to create such rules, so the Secretary of State’s regulation was not enforceable.
Here are the unofficial election returns for Louisiana’s special congressional election of October 19. The two candidates with “O” after their names are both independents. Thanks to Michael for the link.