FOUR MORE COURT DECISIONS EASE BALLOT ACCESS

The May 1 Ballot Access News listed four court decisions that eased ballot access due to the health crisis. Since those decisions came down, another four court decisions giving relief have been issued. However, during May, the Colorado decision listed in the last B.A.N. was reversed.

Arkansas: on May 25, U.S. District Court Judge Paul K. Holmes, an Obama appointee, ordered the state to allow initiative petition blanks to be circulated electronically. The order also says that initiative petitions in 2020 don’t need the signature of a circulator;; and that in 2020 sheets don’t need to be notarized. Miller v Thurston, w.d., 5:20cv-5070.

Colorado: on May 4, the State Supreme Court reversed the lower state court decision that had cut the number of signatures for primary petitions. Warren v Griswold, 2020SA34. The State Supreme Court decision did not mention any of the precedents from other states that had cut the number of signatures. Nor did the decision say anything about the rights of voters who wanted to vote for the plaintiff candidates. The Court may have been influenced by the fact that not all primary candidates needed a petition. Primary candidates also get on the ballot if they have significant support at a party meeting. The cases had involved the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, and two candidates for that nomination got on the ballot with no need for a petition.

Massachusetts: on April 29, the State Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion allowing electronic signatures for initiative petitions. Dennis v Galvin, SJ-2020-278.

Virginia: on May 18, a state trial court in Richmond cut the number of signatures for candidates for Mayor from 500 signatures to 150. The judge also extended the petition deadline from June 9 to June 23.

Utah: on April 29, U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby, an Obama appointee, reduced the number of signatures needed for primary candidates for statewide office from 28,000 signatures to 19,040 signatures. Garbett v Herbert, 2:20cv-245. As in Colorado, not every primary candidate needs a petition; candidates also get on if they have support at a party meeting.

Since the instances listed in the May 2020 B.A.N., seven more jurisdictions eased ballot access for 2020, either by action of the legislature, or by executive orders.

Alabama: on March 30, Governor Kay Ivey signed HB 272, which moves the independent presidential petition deadline from August 13 to August 20, for 2020 only.

Colorado: on May 15, Governor Jared Polis issued an order permitting electronic signatures for initiatives.

Connecticut: on May 11, Governor Ned Lamont issued an order cutting the number of signatures for both primary and general petitions to 70% of the normal requirement. For statewide independents, that is a reduction from 7,500 to 5,250.

District of Columbia: on May 5, the City Council passed bill B23-0751. It cuts the number of general election signatures, for 2020 only, for districtwide office, from 3,000 to 250 signatures. However, the bill does not include president, which leaves the D.C. government open to a lawsuit. The presidential petition is 1% of the number of registered voters as of June 2020, which will be approximately 5,000 signatures.

Minnesota: on May 12, Governor Tim Walz signed HF 3429. It allows general election candidate petitions in 2020 to be electronic.

Montana: on May 7, the Secretary of State waived the requirement that initiative petition sheets be notarized. The ruling also allows proponents to e-mail blank sheets, so the recipient came print them out on a home printer.

Washington: on May 7, the Secretary of State waived the need for impecunious candidates to file a petition in lieu of filing fee.

Since the May 1 B.A.N. was issued, new ballot access cases related to the health crisis have been filed in eight states:

Arkansas: on April 29, two independent candidates filed a federal lawsuit for petitioning relief. Whitfield v Thurston, e.d., 4:20cv-466.

Connecticut: on May 6, some primary candidates and voters filed a federal lawsuit for more petition relief than the Governor had granted. Gottlieb v Lamont, 3:20cv-623.

Maryland: on May 19, the Green and Libertarian Parties filed a federal lawsuit for petition relief. Maryland Green Party v Hogan, 1:20cv-1253. The requirement is 10,000 signatures.

Michigan: on May 4, proponents of an initiative filed a federal lawsuit to extend the deadline for initiatives, from May 27 to something later. Sawari Media LLC v Whitmer, e.d., 4:20cv-11246.

Nevada: on May 6, proponents of an initiative filed a federal lawsuit for ballot access relief. Fair Maps Nevada v Cegavske, 3:20cv-271.

New York: on April 19, Joshua Eisen, an independent candidate for U.S. House, 17^th district, filed a state court lawsuit for relief. The law requires 3,500 signatures. The state has suspended the May date for the start of the independent circulation period, so now it is not even legally possible for Eisen or any other independent to start petitioning.

North Dakota: on May 6, proponents of an initiative filed a federal lawsuit for ballot access relief. Sinner v Jaeger, 3:20cv-76.

Ohio: on May 6, independent presidential candidate Richard Duncan filed a federal lawsuit for relief. Duncan v LaRose, s.d., 2:20cv-2295. The law requires 5,000 signatures. He had mostly finished his petition when the health crisis struck. He asks for a reduction in the number of signatures.

Pennsylvania: on May 14, the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties filed a federal lawsuit for relief. Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania v Wolf, e.d., 5:20cv-2299.

Virginia: on May 15, the Constitution and Green Parties filed a federal lawsuit for relief. The case also includes an independent candidate for U.S. House. Constitution Party of Virginia v State Board of Elections, e.d., 3:20cv-349.

Arizona: on May 13, the State Supreme Court refused to allow initiatives to use electronic signatures. Arizonans for Second Chances v Hobbs, VR-Az-0055. The vote was 6-1. The outcome was surprising, because the Secretary of State, a Democrat, said she could administer the idea. Furthermore, the state already permits electronic signatures for candidate petitions (except the state doesn’t permit electronic signatures for independent presidential candidates). The court didn’t explain its reasoning, but it will later. A parallel lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit was voluntarily dismissed on May 20.

Arizona(2): the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the Libertarian ballot access case on June 11. Arizona Libertarian Party v Hobbs, 19-757. There is some reason for optimism because the Court had asked the state to respond earlier this year. The issue is the election law that made it impossible for any Libertarian to get on their own party’s primary ballot, for any state office or congress, in both 2016 and 2018.

Florida: on May 24, a Sunday, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle issued an opinion in Jones v DeSantis, n.d., 4:19cv-300. It said that ex-felons who owe fines and restitution, but who can’t afford to pay them, may register to vote. In addition, ex-felons who owe court costs and fees may register to vote, whether they can afford to pay them or not. The decision interprets court fees and costs as a tax, and the 24^th Amendment outlaws "any poll tax or other tax" as a requirement for voting. The state is appealing this decision.

Florida(2): on April 29, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision of a U.S. District Court, and denied relief in the Democratic Party lawsuit over the order of candidates on the ballot. The law says the nominees of the party that won the last gubernatorial election will be listed on the top of the November ballot. The Eleventh Circuit said the Democratic Party lawsuit is flawed procedurally because the plaintiffs don’t have standing and because the wrong defendants were sued. The Eleventh Circuit says the proper defendants are the county election officials, not the Secretary of State. On May 20 the party asked for a rehearing en banc. Jacobson v Lee, 19-14552.

Georgia: on May 22, the Eleventh Circuit heard Cowen v Raffensperger, 19-14065. This is the lawsuit that challenges the 5% petition for independent candidates for U.S. House, and for the nominees of parties that polled less than 20% of the vote for the office at the top of the ballot in the last election.

That law has kept all minor party candidates for U.S. House off the ballot ever since it was passed in 1943. The hearing went well for the Libertarian Party. Judge R. Lanier Anderson said that the Eleventh Circuit decision Bergland v Harris from 1985 controls this case, which means the law will probably be struck down.

Illinois: on May 15, another hearing was held in Libertarian Party of Illinois v Pritzker, n.d., 1:20cv-2112. This is the case in which petition requirements for minor party and independent candidates had been cut down to only 10% of the original requirement, for 2020 only. The state had persuaded the judge to reconsider her April decision. The judge refused to change her mind about the relief concerning the number of signatures. But she did change the new deadline from August 7 to July 20, after the state insisted it couldn’t live with an August deadline.

Illinois(2): in June, the Seventh Circuit will hear a case over ballot access relief for initiatives. Committee for the Illinois Democracy Act v White, 20-1801. The lower court had denied relief.

Minnesota: the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party filed a federal lawsuit last year over the order of candidates on the general election ballot. Pavek v Simon, 0:19cv-3000. Originally the party wanted a system in which the qualified parties all have an equal chance to have their nominees listed at the top of the ballot. But then the party learned that if it wants rotation of candidates within each precinct, technological constraints require that the independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties also be included in the rotation.

So, the party accepts that outcome. But the state is still opposed to rotation, and wants a lottery just for the qualified parties. The party winning the lottery would be first on the ballot in all precincts. A decision is likely soon.

New York: on May 21, the highest state court, the Court of Appeals, removed Assemblymember Rebecca Seawright from the June Democratic primary ballot. She is running for re-election. The vote was 5-2. She had not submitted a cover sheet. In New York, all candidate petitions must have a cover sheet, that tells how many pages and how many signatures are in the petition. Seawright v Board of Elections in the City of New York, no. 56. As a result, she will now petition to be an independent candidate.

New York(2): on May 19, the Second Circuit agreed with the lower court that the state’s presidential primary cannot be cancelled by executive order. It will be held on June 23. Yang v Kellner, 20-1494. The outcome was a powerful rebuke to Governor Andrew Cuomo. The three judges were Amalya Kearse (a Carter appointee); Jose Cabranes (a Clinton appointee); and Dennis Jacobs (a Bush Sr. appointee).

Ohio: on May 26, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Schmidt v LaRose, 19-974. The issue was whether local election officials should be free to reject an initiative, even if it has enough valid signatures, if they don’t think the initiative, if passed, would be legal. The lower court had ruled against initiative proponents.

Ohio(2): on May 26, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court and denied ballot access relief for a group sponsoring an initiative. Thompson v Devine, 20-3526. The same day, the proponents filed a request for rehearing en banc.

On November 3, 2020, Puerto Rico voters will vote on whether they wish Puerto Rico to become a state. Unlike past plebiscites, this one is simple and just requires a "yes" or "no" vote to one question. If the measure passed, Congress would presumably then seriously consider a bill in the next congress to approve the idea or not.

On May 13, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the two cases on presidential electors, one from Washington and one from Colorado. Chiafalo v Washington, 19-465; and Colorado Department of State v Baca, 19-518. It is not easy to predict how the Court will decide the cases. The Washington case is over whether a state can fine a presidential elector who votes for someone in the electoral college who did not carry the popular vote in that state; the Colorado case is whether a state can expel an elector from the electoral college if he or she votes "disobediently" and replace him or her on the spot.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the most thoughtful question, "What is the purpose of having presidential electors?" but he did not get a responsive answer. The justices wanted to know if states can remove a presidential elector who has been bribed. There seemed to be a consensus that surely if a presidential elector is known to have been bribed before the December meeting of the electoral college, he or she can be removed. Several justices seemed to feel that if a state can remove a bribed elector, then logically the state can remove an elector for other reasons, such as voting for the "wrong" candidate.

Some justices seemed to feel that if they rule that electors are free to vote for the qualified candidate of their choice, there will be "chaos." Because of these remarks, most journalists who wrote about the hearing predicted that the court will rule against elector freedom. On the other hand, Justice Elena Kagan did consider the analogy between presidential electors and jurors. If a juror is bribed, he or she can be prosecuted; but the juror’s vote still stands.

Attorney Larry Lessig, arguing for the electors, said that the Colorado and Washington laws would force an elector to vote for a presidential or vice-presidential candidate who had died shortly before the college meets in mid-December.

Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: the Case for Multiparty Democracy in America,, by Lee Drutman, 2020.

Although the title may sound lurid, "Doom Loop" is an established term. A synonym is "Reinforcing feedback loop". A microphone connects to an amplifier; the microphone picks up a whisper; the amplifier makes the whisper louder; the microphone picks up the noise and makes it louder, etc.

Drutman shows that since the 1980’s, the U.S. party system has become a doom loop. We have moved from the system of the 1950’s, when there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, to today’s system in which the two major parties stand in fierce opposition on cultural, economic, and human rights values. Drutman writes, "America is divided over two competing visions of national identity. Politics is now all about winning and losing. Government is breaking down."

Also, "when partisanship turns toxic, thinking your party is right turns to thinking the other party is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong – so dangerously wrong that should they ever get into power, their policies would pose an existential threat to the nation. When loyalty is absolute, parties can mislead voters they supposedly represent into supporting policies that in fact make their lives worse off. "

Drutman writes plainly and the book is easy to read, but it is backed up with hundreds of notes to scholarly publications. He shows that the solution is not to minimize political parties, but to change the election system so there are more parties with real power and seats in Congress. He describes the most commonly used forms of proportional representation. He concludes the type of proportional representation which could plausibly be enacted in the United States is Multi-Winner Ranked-Choice Voting for congress, and Single-Winner Ranked-Choice Voting for president.

STATE	FIRST BALLOT							SECOND BALLOT
	Don Blankenship	Charles Kraut	Samm Tittle	Don Grundmann		Daniel Cummings		Don Blankenship	Charles Kraut	Samm Tittle		Don Grundmann
Arizona	5.5	5.5	0	0		0		5.5	5.5	0		0
California	1.5	0	0	1.5		0		1.5	0	0		1.5
Colorado	15.0	0	0	0		0		15.0	0	0		0
Florida	0	0	29.0	0		0		29.0	0	0		0
Georgia	0	0	0	0		3.0		0	2.0	2.0		6.0
Illinois	1.0	2.0	0	2.0		0		1.25	1.25	0		2.5
Indiana	0	0	0	0		0		0	0	0		0
Maryland	6.0	0	0	0		0		6.0	0	0		0
Massachus.	1.0	1.0	0	2.0		0		3.0	0	0		1.0
Michigan	26.0	0	0	0		0		26.0	0	0		0
Minnesota	10.0	6.0	0	0		0		16.0	0	0		0
Missouri	11.0	7.0	0	2.0		0		12.0	8.0	0		0
Nevada	14.0	2.0	0	0		0		14.0	2.0	0		0
New Jersey	0	17.0	0	0		0		0	17.0	0		0
New Mex.	0	3.0	11.0	0		0		0	3.0	11.0		0
New York	0	1.0	0	0		2.0		0	3.0	0		0
No Carolina	15.0	5.0	0	0		0		15.0	5.0	0		0
Oklahoma	4.0	2.0	0	0		0		6.0	0	0		0
Penn.	6.0	4.0	1.0	0		1.0		6.5	4.0	1.5		0
Tennessee	6.0	6.0	0	0		0		0	12.0	0		0
Utah	5.0	6.0	1.0	0		4.0		5.0	10.0	0		1.0
Virginia	0	1.0	1.0	0		0		0	1.0	1.0		0
Washington	9.0	3.0	0	0		0		10.0	2.0	0		0
West Va.	3.5	0	1.75	1.75		0		5.25	0	1.75		0
Wisconsin	0	0	0	16.0		0		0	0	4.0		12.0
Wyoming	0	6.3	1.6	0		3.1		0	11.0	0		0
TOTAL	139.5	77.8	46.35	25.25		13.1		177.0	86.75	21.25		24.0

Candidates seeking the 2020 Constitution Party presidential nomination were: Don Blankenship of West Virginia, Charles W. Kraut of Virginia, Sheila "Samm" Tittle of Virginia, Don Grundmann of California, and Daniel Cummings of Wyoming. Grundmann and Cummings had also sought the presidential nomination in 2016. Blankenship had been the party’s nominee for U.S. Senate in West Virginia in 2018.

In the first round, 7 votes from Georgia were cast for "uncommitted." Indiana had a delegation but they couldn’t vote because the state party didn’t pay the assessment.

The 24 states not listed did not send any delegates to the convention: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Vermont.

In 2016, these 21 states did not send any delegates: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In 2012, these fifteen states did not send any delegates: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

In 2008, these eleven states had no delegates: Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The party’s new national chair is Jim Clymer of Pennsylvania.

The vice-presidential nominee, William Mohr of Michigan, was nominated without opposition by voice vote.

State	First Ballot						Second Ballot					Third Ballot				Fourth Ballot
	JO	HO	VS	MO	GR	AK	JO	HO	VS	MO	GR	JO	HO	VS	MO	JO	HO	VS
Al	8	3	1	1	0	0	7	3	1	2	0	8	2	1	2	8	4	1
Ak	0	1	1	3	0	1	0	1	1	4	0	3	1	0	2	5	1	0
Az	5	5	6	1	0	4	10	5	7	1	0	10	5	8	1	10	5	9
Ar	0	4	1	1	0	0	0	4	0	3	0	0	4	0	3	3	4	0
Ca	23	28	14	3	11	18	30	32	20	10	7	34	36	22	12	43	39	20
Co	5	6	8	5	1	3	15	6	6	4	0	15	5	8	4	19	5	7
Ct	5	5	1	0	1	1	7	5	0	0	1	7	5	0	1	8	5	0
De	3	0	1	0	0	0	2	0	2	0	0	2	0	2	0	4	0	0
DC	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	2	2	0	0	0	2	0	0
Fl	9	10	9	17	4	2	11	9	13	17	3	12	11	10	17	17	12	19
Ga	1	13	2	10	1	1	3	11	1	14	0	3	10	1	14	10	12	6
Hi	2	0	1	2	0	0	2	0	2	1	0	3	0	0	2	5	0	0
Id	0	3	2	0	0	1	0	3	3	0	0	0	3	3	0	0	3	3
Il	3	7	9	8	6	3	4	7	11	9	6	5	6	14	11	14	8	15
In	11	4	4	7	2	2	12	3	4	7	1	13	4	6	7	20	4	6
Ia	0	5	1	1	2	2	1	5	1	3	1	3	5	1	2	3	7	1
Ks	4	3	2	0	0	0	4	3	3	0	0	3	3	3	1	5	3	2
Ky	2	1	2	2	2	2	3	2	2	1	3	4	2	2	3	6	3	2
La	3	0	4	0	1	4	5	1	6	1	0	6	1	3	3	8	3	2
Me	2	0	1	0	3	1	7	0	1	0	0	7	0	1	0	7	0	1
Md	6	12	0	0	0	2	6	14	0	0	0	6	14	0	0	6	14	0
Ma	7	4	6	1	2	2	9	4	6	2	1	11	4	6	1	13	4	5
Mi	6	7	1	5	1	4	15	10	3	4	1	16	9	4	4	20	11	2
Mn	6	2	4	0	2	4	8	4	6	0	1	9	3	6	1	10	4	6
Ms	3	1	0	1	0	1	3	1	1	1	0	4	0	1	1	5	0	1
Mo	2	7	5	0	3	2	6	8	2	0	1	6	9	2	1	9	7	1
Mt	1	1	0	2	1	1	1	2	0	3	0	1	2	0	3	4	2	0
Ne	4	1	3	0	0	0	4	1	3	0	0	3	1	3	0	4	1	3
Nv	5	0	0	8	0	0	5	0	1	7	0	10	0	0	3	13	0	0
NH	4	0	4	2	0	1	4	0	4	3	0	6	0	5	0	6	0	5
NJ	4	7	5	0	2	1	4	9	4	1	1	6	11	1	1	7	11	1
NM	6	4	0	2	1	0	7	4	0	1	1	9	4	0	0	7	5	0
NY	5	11	11	3	16	1	8	12	11	2	13	17	14	13	3	23	12	13
NC	10	8	3	4	2	2	10	8	5	2	3	12	9	5	3	14	11	4
ND	2	1	0	0	0	0	2	1	0	0	0	2	1	0	0	2	0	1
Oh	4	5	15	2	6	3	9	8	15	5	6	16	5	13	6	20	7	17
Ok	7	1	1	3	1	1	8	2	1	2	1	7	2	1	4	13	1	0
Or	6	5	1	0	0	1	4	7	2	1	0	6	6	3	0	5	6	3
Pa	12	12	8	2	3	1	16	13	7	3	1	17	12	8	3	19	14	7
RI	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	0	3	0
SC	8	0	5	4	0	0	9	0	3	5	0	8	0	5	4	9	0	8
SD	3	0	1	0	0	1	3	0	2	0	0	2	0	2	1	3	0	2
Tn	5	1	4	8	3	1	6	2	3	9	2	12	2	2	6	17	3	3
Tx	18	7	15	27	6	0	24	6	13	28	2	22	6	16	29	44	6	21
Ut	5	1	3	0	0	0	6	1	1	1	0	6	0	2	1	8	0	1
Vt	0	3	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	1	2	0
Va	11	5	2	6	3	1	17	5	3	4	3	20	7	1	3	22	7	3
Wa	1	22	1	3	5	2	4	23	1	5	2	4	25	1	5	5	29	1
WV	0	0	2	2	2	0	2	0	2	2	0	3	0	2	1	4	0	2
Wi	8	7	2	1	1	0	11	7	1	1	0	10	5	1	4	10	7	2
Wy	1	0	0	0	3	0	3	0	0	0	1	4	0	0	0	4	0	0
TOTAL	247	236	172	147	98	77	339	257	184	169	64	396	259	188	173	524	285	206

Michigan Congressman Justin Amash has listed himself in the Congressional Directory as a Libertarian. The Libertarian Party is the first nationally-organized third party to have a member of the U.S. House listed as a member since Vito Marcantonio of New York, who was listed as an American Labor Party (Progressive Party) member until he was defeated in 1950. Amash may run for re-election as a Libertarian; he has still not decided. The Michigan Libertarian Party holds its nominating convention in August.

On April 28 Amash announced an exploratory committee to seek the Libertarian presidential nomination. But on May 16, he said he would not run for president.

California: the Peace & Freedom Party has informally nominated Gloria La Riva for president and Leonard Peltier for vice-president. That is the same ticket already nominated by the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Maryland: the Bread & Roses Party has nominated John de Graaf for vice-president. It had already nominated Jerome Segal for president.

New Mexico: the Constitution Party of this state has nominated Sheila "Samm" Tittle for president, even though the Constitution Party national convention chose Don Blankenship for president. Tittle was defeated at the national convention.

Oregon: the Independent Party held its own presidential primary, which was won by Joe Biden. Oregon permits fusion, so Biden can be on the November ballot as "Democrat, Independent."

Vermont: Liberty Union Party, which only exists in Vermont, has nominated the La Riva-Peltier ticket.

The Reform Party will hold an electronic national convention on Saturday, June 13.

The Democratic Party doesn’t know to what extent it will hold an in-person convention in Milwaukee. The Republican convention is set for August 24-27 in Charlotte, but the Governor of North Carolina has not said whether he will allow the party to hold a traditional convention, due to the health crisis.