On June 6, Maine Governor Paul LePage signed LD 142 into law. This is the bill that eases the requirement that qualified parties must hold a town caucus in at least one town, in every county of the state, in the spring of even-numbered years. The law now says such meetings are required in any 14 of the state’s 16 counties. The Green Party had requested this relief.
On May 31, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed HB 11, which tells political parties that they are not permitted to nominate anyone who is not a member of the party. Delaware is the second state this year to pass such a law; Florida is the other such state. State legislators in both states ignored the U.S. Supreme Court’s statement in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that states may not forbid parties from nominating non-members.
On June 13, South Dakota Elections Director Aaron Lorenzen confirmed that out-of-state circulators may work in South Dakota, if they are working on the petition to recognize a new, or previously unqualified, party. The previous South Dakota Elections Director had come to the same conclusion.
South Dakota laws forbid out-of-state circulators for initiatives, for independent candidates, and for petitions to place a candidate on the primary ballot of a party. These bans on out-of-state circulators for most kinds of petition were passed in 2007. Probably if the legislature had thought to outlaw out-of-state circulators for petitions to recognize a new party, they would have done that also.
Mr. Lorenzen is to be thanked for making a determination. The Constitution Party asked California’s Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, in April 2011, whether out-of-state circulators are permitted for independent presidential candidate petitions. She still has not responded to the inquiry.
About a dozen states still print party logos on general election ballot. These date from the 19th century and were intended to help voters who cannot read. They are cartoon-like pictures at the top of each party’s party column on the ballot.
Americans Elect has submitted its ballot logo to the Michigan Secretary of State, because Michigan is a state that prints logos on ballots. The Americans Elect logo is simply the name of the party, with “Elect” in bigger letters than “Americans”. Most parties use pictoral symbols. For example, the other ballot-qualified parties in Michigan use these pictures: Democrats have a drawing of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy; Republicans show Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan; the Green Party uses a sunflower; the Libertarian Party has the upper portion of the Statute of Liberty; the Constitution Party has the head of an eagle; the Natural Law Party has a photograph of the earth’s image from space.
An illustration of Americans Elect’s logo will be in the print edition of the July 1, 2011 Ballot Access News.
On June 10, Ralph Nader filed a 15-page reply brief in Nader v Maine Democratic Party, Democratic National Committee, et al, in the Maine Supreme Court. The case was filed by Nader as a tort, in response to actions of the Democratic Party in 2004 to sabotage Nader’s ballot access efforts. Although most of this reply brief is concerned with whether a trial ought to be held in the case, page 7 has a concise list of the worst things that the Democrats did to Nader.
Nader’s similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions were barred by the statute of limitations, but Maine has a 6-year statute of limitations, so if this case is ever heard on the merits, it will be in Maine state court.
On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Nevada Commission on Ethics v Carrigan, 10-568. This is the case involving a city councilmember in Sparks, Nevada, who wanted to vote in favor of allowing a casino. He did cast that vote, but the Commission on Ethics then censured him, because if the casino had been approved, the councilmember’s friend and past campaign manager would have personally benefited, since the friend was a paid consultant to the casino project.
The opinion, by Justice Scalia, is only eleven pages. The opinion unanimously holds that the censure did not violate freedom of speech. However, Justice Alito wrote a concurrence disagreeing with parts of the opinion, and Justice Kennedy wrote a concurrence saying this case does not decide the issue of whether censure is constitutional when the legislator’s vote is influenced by friendship.
The chief basis for the Court’s opinion is that recusal rules have existed in Congress ever since the early 1790’s, and therefore the founding fathers could not have believed that recusal laws violate the First Amendment. Scalia differentiates between voting in a legislative body by a member of that body, and ordinary voting by citizens. The opinion says, “Voting by a legislator is different from voting by a citizen. While a voter’s franchise is a personal right, the procedures for voting in legislative assemblies pertain to legislators not as individuals but as political representatives.”