Federal Judge in Texas Invalidates Houston’s Popular Vote to Eliminate Red-Light Cameras

On June 17, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Hughes, a Reagan appointee, ruled that a November 2010 ballot measure passed by the voters of Houston, Texas, is invalid. Here is the six-page opinion in City of Houston v American Traffic Solutions, Inc., southern district H-10-4545. There will be an appeal. American Traffic Solutions is the company that installs red light cameras at intersections.

Texas election law, and the Houston city charter, permit initiatives to amend to city charter, but there is no initiative process for ordinances. There is provision for referendums for ordinances, but referendum petitions must be filed shortly after an ordinance is passed by the city council. In 2004 the Houston city council passed an ordinance to use cameras to record cars running red lights. No one filed a referendum petition against that new policy in 2004. As time went on, popular discontent with the cameras increased, so in 2010 the city council, responding to popular opinion, put a proposed Charter Amendment on the ballot to ask the voters if they wish to eliminate the cameras. The voters passed it, but this decision invalidates the vote, on the grounds that an issue that narrow can’t be a Charter amendment. It is not clear why this case is in federal court instead of state court.

Americans Elect Web Page Posts New Signature Total for Ballot Access Petitions

Americans Elect’s web page now says 1,348,312 signatures have been obtained on petitions around the nation, to get that party on the ballot. The page seems to update that figure each Thursday. Last week’s total had been 1,262,665. The vast majority of these signatures have been obtained in California, where 1,030,040 valid signatures are needed.

In California, Americans Elect petitioners are being paid $1.25. However, if a petitioner submits at least 400 signatures per week, the pay for all signatures for that petitioner that week is raised to $2.00 per signature.

New York Legislature Passes Bill for Late April Presidential Primary

On June 17, the New York legislature passed A8363 and S5753, identical bills which move the presidential primary from February to April 24. Any qualified party in New York is free to choose the Republican Party’s presidential primary rules. The Republican Party’s presidential primary rules in New York enable any presidential candidate to appear on his or her party’s presidential primary ballot without a petition. The candidate must either be mentioned in the news media or else must be eligible to receive primary matching funds.

These rules will make it practical for the Green Party to hold its second presidential primary in New York state. The Green Party was ballot-qualified in 2000 and had four candidates in its presidential primary that year: Ralph Nader (445 votes); Jello Biafra (87 votes); Joel Kovel (79 votes); and Stephen Gaskin (24 votes). Thanks to Josh Putnam for the news about the New York legislature’s recent action.

Ohio Legislature Expected to Pass Bill on June 23 Moving Petition Deadline for New Parties to February

The Ohio Senate is scheduled to pass HB 194 on Thursday, June 23. This is an omnibus election law bill backed by the Secretary of State. It moves the primary from March to May. Existing law says the primary in presidential years, for all office, is in March (although in midterm years it is already in May).

HB 194 also moves the deadline for a new party to submit its petition from 120 days before the primary, to 90 days before the primary. Therefore, assuming the bill is signed into law, the 2012 primary will be May 8, and the petition deadline will be February 8. No reported decision of any court has ever upheld a petition deadline for a new party, or an independent candidate, that early, so the new law will almost certainly be held unconstitutional. Early petition deadlines for new parties, or for independent candidates, have been held unconstitutional in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio itself, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. Decisions on early deadlines will probably be issued this year in Montana and Vermont. Also, injunctions against early petition deadlines for new parties have been issued in Hawaii and Idaho, although neither case then received a decision on declaratory judgment.

The Ohio legislature seems unaware of this large body of constitutional law. The existing Ohio deadline of November in the odd year before the election was invalidated by the 6th circuit in 2006, and HB 194 is intended to replace the old law. But, assuming HB 194 is signed into law, it will trigger a new lawsuit. HB 194 does not lower the number of signatures to place a new party on the ballot, nor does it lower the number of votes for a party to remain ballot-qualified, nor does it ease the wording on the party petition which says that the signers intend to participate in the new party’s primary.

The Ohio legislature ought to pass a procedure that enables a newly-qualifying party to nominate by convention. Ohio parties were permitted to nominate by convention in the period before 1947 and to have a party label on the ballot next to the names of their nominees. Also, the American Independent Party nominated by convention in Ohio in 1968, and 1996, and the Socialist Labor Party nominated by convention in 1970, and the Reform Party nominated by convention in 1996. Ohio therefore has a fair amount of experience with letting newly-qualified parties nominate by convention. However, it is true that the legislature would need to set in motion a change in the Ohio Constitution in order to make this policy change, because Ohio is one of two states with a state constitutional provision requiring primaries for all parties.