California Secretary of State Issues Extraordinarily Hostile Ruling on Deadline to Qualify a New Party

On May 3, the California Secretary of State released a letter to Americans Elect, which says, “Our office recommends that petition signatures be filed with those (county) officials on or before September 16, 2011.” The letter is referring to the petition to qualify Americans Elect as a new party in California. Furthermore, this part of the letter assumes that AB 80 will pass. AB 80 moves the presidential primary from February 2012 to June 2012. It has already passed the Assembly unanimously.

The letter says that if AB 80 does not pass, “our office recommends that petition signatures be filed with those officials on or before May 25, 2011.”

There are several problems with the Secretary of State’s letter: (1) the letter seems to assume that political parties in California must qualify in time for the presidential primary, as opposed to the primary for other office. But, there is a precedent in California in which a newly qualifying party submitted its petition in time for the direct (non-presidential) primary, but not in time for the presidential primary. That precedent was set by the Liberty Party in 1932, when the California presidential primary was in May but the primary for other office was in August; (2) the California law does not require newly-qualifying parties to submit a petition by any particular date that is earlier than 135 days before the primary. That deadline (assuming AB 80 passes) will be January 22, 2012. There is no authority in California election law for an earlier deadline. When the Secretary of State of Ohio created a deadline for new party petitions by fiat in 2007, a U.S. District Court in Ohio struck down the Ohio Secretary’s deadline on the grounds that the U.S. Constitution’s election clause says only state legislatures may create rules for federal elections; (3) the letter ignores the case law that early petition deadlines for new parties to qualify for the ballot are unconstitutional. Federal and state courts in 15 states have struck down qualifying deadlines for new parties that were earlier than May of the election year. These decision have been based on four U.S. Supreme Court opinions, Williams v Rhodes, Jenness v Fortson, Mandel v Bradley, and Anderson v Celebrezze.

Thanks to Irregular Times for the link to the letter.

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case Filed by Ralph Nader’s Attorneys over Amount of Attorneys’ Fees

On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit over whether the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to Ralph Nader’s ballot access attorneys in Arizona had been fair. In 2008 the 9th circuit had struck down Arizona’s June petition deadline for independent presidential candidates, and had also struck down Arizona’s ban on out-of-state circulators. Under federal law, when a voting rights case (or other type of civil rights case) is won by plaintiffs against a state government, the state government must pay attorneys’ fees. The attorneys who represented Ralph Nader had felt that the lower courts had not given them enough fees, and had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. But the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. The case was Nader v Bennett, 10-1186.

California Bill, Easing Restrictions on Counting Certain Write-ins, Advances

On May 5, the California Assembly passed AB 461 by a vote of 51-21. This bill says, “In the event of a manual recount conducted pursuant to Section 15610 or requested pursuant to Section 15620 or 15621, the process set forth in Section 15342 shall be liberally construed to ensure that each ballot is counted if the intent of the voter can be determined, regardless of whether the voter has complied with the voting instructions.”

If this bill is signed into law, write-ins will count, even though the voter forgot, or didn’t know, to “X” the box next to the name written in. It is ironic that a California bill liberalizing counting write-ins is making headway, at the same time that California has another statute on the books that says write-ins may never be counted in November for Congress or state office. The latter restriction was added in 2009 to implement the top-two system. There is no bill pending to repeal that serious write-in restriction.

Oral Argument in California Lawsuit on “Top-Two” Set for June 13

U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright will hear oral arguments in Chamness v Bowen on June 13, Monday, at 1:30 p.m., in Los Angeles. This is the lawsuit that challenges two particular details of California’s top-two system: (1) the discriminatory policy on partisan labels on ballots; and (2) and the provision that says that even though write-in space is printed on ballots, no write-ins can be counted for Congress or state office in general elections.

Montana Constitution Party Re-Affiliates with National Constitution Party

On May 14, the Montana Constitution Party held a state convention. It elected new officers and voted to rejoin the national organization of the Constitution Party. In 2008 the Montana Constitution Party had not been affiliated with the national Constitution Party, which is one reason the Montana Constitution Party in 2008 placed Ron Paul on the November ballot as its presidential nominee, instead of Chuck Baldwin. Thanks to Frank Fluckiger for this news.