Missouri Governor Vetoes Omnibus Election Law Bill

Posted on by
Reply

On July 8, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon vetoed SB 282, this year’s omnibus election law bill. See this story. Among other things, the bill moved the presidential primary from February to March; provided for special elections when a vacancy occurs in statewide office (including U.S. Senate); and eliminated non-partisan city elections in some cities when the number of candidates listed on the ballot equals the number of vacancies.

Governor Nixon’s veto message criticized the latter two provisions. An irony of this veto is that, just before this bill passed the legislature, the conference committee had deleted a provision helping newly-qualifying minor parties, because the conferees felt that anything that helps minor parties would be “controversial” and would make the bill more likely to be vetoed. The provision would have eliminated the typographical error in the existing law that forces petitions for a newly-qualifying party to list candidates for president and presidential elector, if the new party desires to nominate for these offices in the next election. Thanks to Ken Bush and Brandon Henderson for the news about the veto.

Ohio Socialist Party U.S. Senate Candidate Sues Over Lack of Objective Standards for Debate Inclusion

Posted on by
Reply

On July 8, Dan La Botz filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., over a complete absence of objective criteria in several televised debates last year between candidates for U.S. Senate in Ohio. La Botz was the Socialist Party nominee in 2010 for U.S. Senate. The Ohio News Organization, comporsed of the largest eight newspapers in the state, sponsored televised U.S. Senate debates, and failed to set out any objective criteria on whom to include. Instead, the organization merely invited the Democratic and Republican nominees, and did not even communicate with the other two candidates listed on the ballot.

Although federal regulations permit broadcasters to set severe standard on whom to invite, they are very clear that there must be such standards. After the debates were over, the Ohio News Organization said it had invited the two major party nominees based on their party affiliation and the fact that they were the “obvious frontrunners.” La Botz then complained to the Federal Election Commission, which did not act on his complaint and dismissed it on May 19, 2011. Therefore, La Botz is now suing the FEC to force it to enforce the law. When there are no objective standards, the debate sponsors are in violation of federal election law, which bans corporate contributions to candidates for federal office.

U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Rules that Independent Candidate in City Election Has Standing to Challenge Partisan Elections in Kinston, North Carolina

Posted on by
Reply

On July 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. issued this opinion in LaRoque v Holder, 10-5433. The decision says that independent candidate John Nix, who wants to run for city council of Kinston, North Carolina, in the November 2011 election, has standing to challenge the chain of developments that causes Kinston to still have partisan city elections.

In November 2008, the voters of Kinston voted to start using non-partisan elections instead of partisan city elections. But the U.S. Justice Department refused to pre-clear that change, arguing that partisan elections are more beneficial to black voters in the south. Therefore, Nix and some other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General, arguing that partisan elections are harmful to independent candidates, not only because North Carolina has such severe ballot access hurdles for independent candidates, but because North Carolina uses a straight-ticket device that injures independent candidates. Nix argued that the city council refuses to file a lawsuit to get permission for the city to use non-partisan elections, and therefore his only remedy is to sue to get Section Five of the Voting Rights Act overturned. The U.S. District Court said Nix lacks standing, but now the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled Nix does have standing.

Because the constitutionality of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act (the part requiring certain parts of the nation to get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election laws) is already shaky, this case may become very important. Of course, the Justice Department is free to change its mind about Kinston, and let the city have non-partisan elections. The U.S. Court of Appeals decision deals only with standing, and sends the case back to the U.S. District Court to adjudicate the merits of the case. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

New York Special U.S. House Election Procedure Gives Only 12 Days for Independent Candidate Petitions

Posted on by
Reply

On July 1, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called a special election to fill the empty U.S. House seat of Anthony Weiner. New York law requires 3,500 valid signatures to place an independent candidate, or the nominee of an unqualified party, on the ballot. In special elections, that same number of signatures is required, even though typically only 12 days are permitted to get those signatures. In the upcoming election, those signatures are due July 13.

Courts in several other states have ruled that when the normal petitioning period is shorter than usual, the state must reduce the number of signatures proportionately, or else must provide more time. Lawsuits like this have won in Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and Wyoming. A lawsuit on this subject is pending in California Superior Court in Sacramento County. The California lawsuit was brought by a Peace & Freedom Party candidate in a special election earlier this year. Unfortunately, the attorney who brought the lawsuit was forced to resign from the case after his new employer told him he could not continue to work on the case, and the Peace & Freedom Party candidate, Daniel Frederick, has not yet found a replacement. The court has given him several months to find a new attorney.

Idaho Republicans May Use Caucus Instead of Presidential Primary

Posted on by
Reply

Leadership of the Idaho Republican Party will decide on July 16 whether to institute a caucus for 2012 instead of using the May presidential primary. See this story. Although the party does not have the power to eliminate the presidential primary, the party does have the authority to say that the Republican presidential primary will be a “beauty contest” and that the caucus will choose the delegates to the national convention.

Ohio Governor Signs HB 194

Posted on by
Reply

On July 1, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed HB 194. This is an omnibus election law bill that, among other things, purports to give Ohio a ballot access law for minor parties that complies with the 2006 decision of the 6th circuit in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell. It sets a petition deadline of early February, the same deadline that was held unconstitutional in Williams v Rhodes by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. The Supreme Court said an early February deadline is “unreasonably early.” However, it is true that the new Ohio deadline is better than the old one of November of the year before the election.

The next step will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether the four minor parties that were ballot-qualified in 2008 and 2010 (Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Socialist) may remain on the 2012 ballot. Former Secretary of State Ted Brown, in analogous circumstances, left parties on the ballot in 1970 and 1972.