On August 13, the Michigan Republican Party state committee decided to use a presidential primary in 2012 to choose delegates to the national convention, instead of a caucus. The primary will probably be held on February 28. See this story. The February 28 date is not in accordance with the national Republican Party’s rules. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
On August 12, a lower state court in Arizona ruled that the recall petition against State Senator Russell Pearce has enough valid signatures. See this story. The decision will be appealed. Pearce is President of the State Senate. UPDATE: here is the opinion, which is called Ross v Bennett, cv11-011864.
Tom Ramstack, a reporter for the Washington Times, has written this interesting story about the lawsuit Igartua v U.S.A. This is the case on whether Puerto Rico should have voting representatives in Congress. As noted earlier, on August 4, 2011, the First Circuit had denied a rehearing by a tie vote, 3-3. Ramstack believes that the Puerto Rico government, and the individual voter-plaintiff, are certain to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. He also explains why he believes that the U.S. Supreme Court may hear this case. Specifically, he believes that Justice Sonia Sotomayor will be very interested in this case, and that perhaps she can persuade her fellow justices to take an interest in the case. The U.S. Supreme Court in the past has always declined to hear any voting rights case involving U.S. citizens who live in a territory or commonwealth.
On August 12, a lower state court in Colorado ruled that Saguache County, Colorado, must turn over its ballots from the August 2010 primary, and the November 2010 general election, for a hand recount. The Secretary of State’s office will do the recount. The Secretary of State has been working for this outcome for several months. See this story. Several lawsuits have been filed by individuals and groups who do not believe the ES&S machine count was accurate.
On August 12, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party filed a request with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, that the Court accept the party’s lawsuit on whether the election law permits stand-in presidential and vice-presidential candidates on petitions. Everyone agrees that the election law permits stand-ins on petitions for other office (relative to independent candidates, and to the nominees of unqualified parties), but the law is not clear on whether stand-ins are permitted for President, Vice-President, and presidential elector. The case is Libertarian Assn. of Mass. v Galvin, sj2011-0348.
Earlier this year the First Circuit ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not requires states to permit stand-ins on candidate petitions, but the First Circuit also said that the law is unclear and a state court should construe the law. In some states, there is no need for stand-ins, because the petition doesn’t require any candidates to be named. But in other states, stand-ins are important, because otherwise minor parties must hold their presidential conventions very early in the season, so as to have enough time to petition. States that do permit presidential stand-ins include Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Massachusetts permitted it in past years, but arbitrarily refused to permit it in 2008 for the Libertarians, even though earlier the state had told the party that it would permit it that year.
On August 12, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge to the validity of a statewide initiative petition. Here is the 3-page decision. Opponents of the initiative had charged that the petition is invalid because not all of the paid petition circulators filed a compensation statement. Opponents had also charged that the petition is invalid because some of the circulators had listed as their employer the name of the group that is sponsoring the initiative, instead of listing the company that had been hired to gather the signatures. The case is Rothenberg v Husted, 2011-4003.
The initiative will now appear on the November 8, 2011 ballot. It adds a state constitutional provision that says “No federal, state or local law shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.”