Maine Ballot Access Bills Advance

On May 3, the Maine Joint Committee on State and Local Government passed LD 545 by a vote of 9-4. This bill lowers the number of signatures for a member of a small qualified party to get on the primary ballot of that party for Governor. The existing law requires 2,000 signatures of party members, no matter how many or how few members that party has. Only party members may sign. The original bill changed this to the lower of 2,000 signatures, or 2% of the number of registered voters in the party.

The committee amended the bill. Now it requires the lower of 2,000 signatures or 2% of the number of registered voters in the party, but no matter how the percentage works out, the candidate would still always need a minimum of 750 signatures.

The other Maine ballot access improvement bill, LD 142, also is making headway. This bill eases the requirement that a party must have municipal caucuses in each county in the state, in the spring of even-numbered years. Maine has 16 counties. The original bill said a party needed such caucuses in at least 12 counties, but the bill is being amended to require meetings in 14 counties. It will probably receive a vote in the House on May 5.

Another Badge Bill for Petitioners Advances in California

On May 3, the California Senate Elections Committee passed SB 448. The three Democrats voted “yes” and the two Republicans voted “No.” The bill says that anyone circulating an initiative, referendum or recall petition must wear a badge. If the circulator is being compensated, it must say the circulator is being paid. If the circulator is not being paid, it must say “volunteer.” It also says the badge must name the California county in which the circulator is registered. If the circulator is not registered to vote, the badge must say that. The badge must be worn on the chest and must by clearly visible, with 30-point type.

In 2008 the 9th circuit ruled in Nader v Brewer that states cannot bar out-of-state circulators. That was an Arizona case, but is binding on all the states of the 9th circuit, including California. SB 448 seems to assume that all circulators in California will never been registered to vote in another state.

This bill should not be confused with AB 481, which also requires all circulators to wear a badge indicating paid or volunteer, but which says nothing about the circulator’s registration status.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Presidential Eligibility Case

On Monday, May 2, the 9th circuit heard arguments in Drake v Obama, 09-56827, in Pasadena, California. C-SPAN carried the hearing, which lasted 51 minutes. This case was filed in U.S. District Court on January 20, 2009, and argues that President Obama (who had been sworn in that day) does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president. The plaintiffs are the American Independent Party’s presidential and vice-presidential nominees from 2008, Alan Keyes for president and Rev. Wiley Drake for vice-president.

All other lawsuits over presidential eligibility filed in the last three years were filed by people who were held to lack standing. There is some case law to support the idea that candidates running against Obama do have standing. However, it appears that the panel will find that Keyes and Drake should have filed their lawsuit early in 2008 in order to have standing, and that because they didn’t file until after the election is over, they were no longer candidates at that point and also lack standing. The three judges are Harry Pregerson, Marsha Berzon, and Raymond Fisher.

The attorney who represented President Obama, David A. DeJute, seemed to concede that if Keyes and Drake had filed this lawsuit several months before the election, they would have had standing. On an unrelated subject, he made a statement that is factually incorrect. He told the court that Ralph Nader, an independent presidential candidate in 2008, filed some lawsuits attempting to keep certain other presidential candidates (whom he did not name) off the ballot. There is no truth to this statement whatsoever.

When this case had been argued in U.S. District Court, it was called Keyes v Obama. At the 9th circuit hearing, attorney Orly Taitz represented Keyes, and attorney Gary Kreep represented Rev. Drake. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

April Ballot Access News Print Edition

Ballot Access News
April 1, 2011 – Volume 26, Number 11

This issue was originally printed on white paper.


Table of Contents

  1. BALLOT ACCESS BILLS ADVANCE IN NINE STATES
  2. IDAHO REPUBLICANS WINS LAWSUIT AGAINST OPEN PRIMARY
  3. JUDGE SAYS SOME VALID VOTES NEED NOT BE COUNTED
  4. LIBERTARIANS SUE FEC OVER BEQUESTS
  5. NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT BALLOT ACCESS LOSS
  6. MARYLAND RULING EASES PETITIONING
  7. U.S. SUPREME COURT
  8. MORE LAWSUIT NEWS
  9. LAWSUITS ON PRIVACY FOR PETITION SIGNERS
  10. BILLS TO INJURE BALLOT ACCESS
  11. MISSOURI BALLOT ACCESS BILL INTRODUCED
  12. BIRTH CERTIFICATE BILLS FAIL TO PASS
  13. AMERICANS ELECT
  14. OTHER PETITIONING NEWS
  15. NEW MEXICO GAINS ITS FIRST INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATOR
  16. MISSISSIPPI 2011 ELECTION
  17. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

Continue reading

Mountain Party Nominates Bob Henry Baber for West Virginia Special Gubernatorial Election

On Sunday, May 1, the Mountain Party nominated Bob Henry Baber for Governor in the special election set for October 4, 2011. Baber is a former Mayor of Richwood. He will be the only person on the ballot, other than the Democratic and Republican nominees. The two major parties will soon choose their gubernatorial nominees in a primary election.

The Mountain Party chose to nominate by convention this year. It is the Green Party affiliate in West Virginia. See this story. Thanks to Independent Political Report for the link.

Oklahoma Legislature Passes Bill Moving Petition Deadline to March 1

On May 3, the Oklahoma House again passed HB 1615, so it is now through the legislature. This is the bill that moves the primary (for office other than President) from July to June. It also moves the petition deadline for new parties from May 1 to March 1.

As has been reported already, there are 15 court precedents that petition deadlines for new parties cannot be this early, and no contrary published opinions. It is not known if the Oklahoma legislators who passed this bill were aware of these court precedents. Each legislator received an e-mail documenting this several weeks ago, but chances are very few legislators read the e-mail. One legislator did respond to the e-mail with the comment that “we pass unconstitutional laws all the time.” Thanks to Tony Roza for the news about the bill passing.