On January 4, an Alameda County Superior Court held a status conference in Rubin v Bowen, the lawsuit in which the Peace & Freedom, Libertarian, and Green Parties challenge the essence of the California top-two system. The judge set another status conference for March 4, and said he is working very hard on an opinion as to whether the case should be dismissed. That opinion will be released before January 29.
On January 4, the Libertarian Party asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case known as Libertarian Party v D.C. Board of Elections. The question is whether the District of Columbia Board of Elections violates voters’ rights when it refuses to count the write-in votes for declared write-in candidates. The case originated in 2008, when the party was not on the ballot for President in D.C., but Bob Barr and the three Libertarian presidential elector candidates filed as declared write-in candidates. The Libertarians were the only candidates who filed as declared write-ins for president/presidential elector in D.C. in 2008. The lower courts said the government interest in saving itself effort and expense was more important than the principle that all voters should be treated equally. Here is the cert petition.
UPDATE: the case is number 12-836.
On January 1, 2013, Dr. Robert Fand died. See this obituary for him from the NewsTimes of Danbury, Connecticut. Dr. Fand was the founder of the Independent Party, and the obituary has some information about the party, although the information is incomplete and makes it sound as though the Independent Party was just a party that cross-endorsed lots of Republican nominees.
The Independent Party put Ralph Nader on the Connecticut ballot for President in 2008, and Rocky Anderson on the ballot for President in 2012, and had a full slate of statewide nominees on the ballot in 2010. All of its 2010 statewide nominees were candidates who were not the nominees of any other party, except that the Independence Party cross-endorsed the Green Party nominee for Attorney General. The party was very eclectic. It has qualified status for 2014 for all the statewide offices. As the story says, there was some factionalism in the party, but that factionalism never seemed to interfere with its nomination process. Thanks to Joshua Van Vranken for the link.
Ballot Access News
December 1, 2012 – Volume 28, Number 7
| This issue was printed on white paper. |
Table of Contents
The Independence Party of New York cross-endorsed 99 Republican nominees for U.S. House and state legislature in 2012. It only cross-endorsed 46 Democratic nominees. It only had 6 nominees for U.S. House and legislature combined who weren’t major party nominees.
This is in contrast to the Independence Party’s behavior in 1996, when it was the New York state unit of the Reform Party and nominated Ross Perot for President. In 1996, for U.S. House and legislature together, it cross-endorsed 57 Democrats, and 39 Republicans, and had 47 nominees who weren’t major party nominees.
In 2012, the Independence Party did cross-endorse the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, but that was not a close race. By contrast, many New York legislative races, and a few U.S. House races, were very close, so the Independence Party nomination in those close races was important. The Independence Party ran no presidential nominee in 2012.
On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold an oral argument in Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, 12-96. This is the case that argues Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Section five is the part of the act that requires certain states, and certain governmental units within states, to get permission from the U.S. Justice Department before changing any election laws or practices.
Section Five has been upheld several times in the past by the U.S. Supreme Court, but opponents of Section Five argue that it is now obsolete. Recently, many amicus curiae briefs have been filed by opponents of Section Five, including the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. See this web page, which lists all the amicus curiae briefs filed against Section Five. It is very likely that many amicus curiae briefs in support of Section Five will be filed in the next few weeks. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.