Scotusblog Features Connecticut Green Party Case in its "Cert Petition of the Day"

Posted on by
Reply

Scotusblog is a very prestigious blog that is recognized as the leading source of news about the U.S. Supreme Court. The editors choose particularly interesting and relevant cert petitions, and describe them, and provide links to the documents in that case. The case featured on February 3 is Green Party of Connecticut v Lenge, 10-795. See here. Thanks to both Thomas Jones and Rick Hasen for the link.

The case concerns Connecticut’s discriminatory law on how candidates for state office get public funding. All candidates must collect a large number of $5 contributions from voters, in order to qualify. But an independent candidate, or the candidate of a new party, must also submit a petition of 20% of the voters, in order to qualify for full public funding, whereas nominees of parties that polled 20% for Governor at the last election need no signatures at all.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t accepted a case for review, if the cert petition was filed by a minor party or an independent candidate, since 1996, when it accepted Chandler v Miller, 520 U.S. 305, a Georgia case in which the Libertarian Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor successfully overturned a state law requiring candidates for state office to be tested for illegal drugs.

Michigan Files Brief in Socialist Party Ballot Access Case Pending in State Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

On January 11, the Michigan Attorney General filed a 30-page brief in the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing that the Supreme Court should not hear the Socialist Party’s ballot access case.

The Socialist Party’s strongest legal point is that the state requires substantially more signatures to get a new (or previously unqualified) party on the ballot, than it requires votes for an already-established party to remain on the ballot. In 2010, the Socialist Party needed 38,024 signatures to get on the ballot, but a party that was already on the ballot in 2010 only needed 16,083 votes for any statewide race to remain on the ballot. In Williams v Rhodes, the U.S. Supreme Court had said one reason the old Ohio ballot access laws for new parties were unconstitutional is that a new party needed petition signatures of 15% of the last gubernatorial vote to get on, but an old party needed a 10% vote (a lesser percentage) for Governor to remain on. The Michigan Attorney General’s brief does not mention Williams v Rhodes.

The Attorney General’s brief says, “A petition signature requirement is arguably more predictable and reliable, and thus, less burdensome, than a voting requirement.”

Ralph Nader Letter to President Obama Contrasts U.S. Rhetoric about Free and Fair Elections with Lack of Voting Rights in Washington, D.C.

Posted on by
Reply

Ralph Nader has sent this letter to President Obama, acknowledging that Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are calling for free and fair elections in Egypt, and pointing out the hypocrisy, because the United States does not let residents of Washington, D.C., vote for members of Congress. Thanks to Independent Political Report for the link.

Oral Argument Date Set in District of Columbia Write-in Counting Case

Posted on by
Reply

U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell has tentatively set a hearing date of 10:30 a.m. on March 4 for oral arguments in Libertarian Party v District of Columbia Board of Elections, 09-cv-1676. This is the case in which the party and Bob Barr argue that the U.S. Constitution requires that all valid votes must be counted, including write-in votes for presidential candidates who file a declaration of write-in candidacy. In 1975 the D.C. Appeals Court had ruled in Kamins v Board of Elections that the board must print write-in space on general election ballots for president, and must count those votes. The D.C. Board of Elections has interpreted that to mean that all it must do is count the total number of write-ins cast for President, without specifying how many write-in votes any particular candidate received, even if he or she had filed a declaration of write-in candidacy.

The case was filed in 2009 in the D.C. Court system, and the Board of Elections had it transferred to federal court. The first U.S. District Court Judge who had the case asked the U.S. Justice Department if it wished to express an opinion, but the Justice Department declined. Recently the case was transferred to Judge Howell, who is new to the federal bench.