Ballot Access News
June 1, 2012 – Volume 28, Number 1
|This issue was printed on white paper.|
Table of Contents
- JUSTICE PARTY AND CONSTITUTION PARTY WIN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN CALIFORNIA BALLOT ACCESS DEADLINE CASE
- MISSOURI BALLOT ACCESS BILL PASSES
- TENNESSEE BALLOT ACCESS BILL SIGNED
- WASHINGTON’S EXPERT WITNESS IN TOP-TWO CASE SAYS TOP-TWO DOESN’T WORK
- HIGHEST STATE COURTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND MARYLAND ISSUE HORRIBLE DECISIONS
- HIGH COURT WON’T HEAR ILLINOIS GERRYMANDER CASE
- THREE NEW BALLOT ACCESS CASES FILED
- ALABAMA, OKLAHOMA ACCESS BILLS FAIL
- LIBERTARIAN PARTY TO SUE MICHIGAN OVER “SORE LOSER” LAW
- MORE LAWSUIT NEWS
- LIBERTARIAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL, VICE-PRESIDENTIAL VOTE
- 2012 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
- PARTIES NOT ON PETITIONING CHART
- LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
- AMERICAN INDEPENDENT CONVENTION
- LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
- AMERICANS ELECT WON’T RUN ANYONE FOR PRESIDENT THIS YEAR
- SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL
JUSTICE PARTY AND CONSTITUTION PARTY WIN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN CALIFORNIA BALLOT ACCESS DEADLINE CASE
On May 22, U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson issued an order enjoining the California Secretary of State from enforcing the January deadline for newly-qualifying parties to get on the ballot. The case was brought by the ACLU on behalf of the Justice Party and the Constitution Party. It is called California Justice Party v Bowen, 2:12cv-3956, central district.
It is likely that the Secretary of State will soon issue a regulation setting a much later deadline. Also, one particular Democratic Assemblyman has already expressed an interest in introducing a bill to ease ballot access for minor parties, and the proposed bill may be introduced soon.
This is the first constitutional ballot access case that a minor party or independent candidate has won against a California law since 1988. The injunction would not have been issued if the judge didn’t believe that the early deadline is probably unconstitutional.
The state had argued in court that the injunction should not be issued, because the Justice Party and the Constitution Party, so far, have made only feeble attempts to qualify. They are trying to qualify by meeting the requirement to have 103,004 registered members, and so far neither one of them has as many as 400 registered members. This was brought out in court. But, that alone was not enough to prevent the injunction from being issued.
Therefore, this case not only affects California; it sets a useful precedent that may help in pending cases against early deadlines in Alabama, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Vermont. It will also help a proposed lawsuit against the Hawaii deadline.
The California case had been filed on May 4, and the case had been expedited. Judge Anderson is a Bush, Jr. appointee. It is very unlikely that the state will appeal. There are no reported precedents that permit deadlines for newly-qualifying parties to be as early as January.
MISSOURI BALLOT ACCESS BILL PASSES
On May 3, the Missouri legislature passed HB 1236, a bill to ease ballot access for newly-qualifying parties that intend to run a presidential candidtae. The existing law says such a group must list its presidential nominee and its presidential elector nominees on the petition. The bill deletes this requirement. Assuming the Governor signs the bill, in the future, parties can circulate their petition in Missouri before they know who they will be running for President and Vice-President.
If this bill had passed last year, it would have especially helpful to Americans Elect, which did circulate a petition in Missouri last year, but which has never submitted the petition because its petition doesn’t list any nominees for President, Vice-President, or presidential elector.
TENNESSEE BALLOT ACCESS BILL SIGNED
On May 10, Governor Bill Haslam signed SB 3700, which moves the petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties from April to August. The bill only passed because earlier this year, a U.S. District Court had held the old deadline to be too early.
The bill does not lower the number of signatures, which remains at 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote.
WASHINGTON’S EXPERT WITNESS IN TOP-TWO CASE SAYS TOP-TWO DOESN