U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Bars Independent Candidate for the Ohio Legislature by a Vote of 2-1

Posted on by September 18, 2012
7

On September 14, the 6th Circuit voted 2-1 to keep Greg Jolivette off the ballot. He wants to be an independent candidate for the Ohio State House, 51st district. The decision is Jolivette v Husted, 12-3998. On September 17, Jolivette asked for a rehearing en banc.

Ohio statutes ban “sore losers” but Jolivette did not run in any primary this year, nor did he vote in any primary this year. But the Secretary of State still kept him off the ballot, even though his petition had enough valid signatures, because he had associated with the Republican Party last year. Specifically, he had petitioned to be on the 2012 Republican primary ballot, but had then withdrawn and did not appear on the primary ballot.

Jolivette argued that the Ohio law, if it really should be construed to keep him off the ballot, is too vague. The Sixth Circuit majority said he can’t raise that issue now because he didn’t clearly raise it in the U.S. District Court. The opinion is by Judge Karen Nelson Moore, a Clinton appointee, and also signed by Judge David McKeague, a Bush Jr. appointee. The dissenter is Judge Gilbert Merritt, a Carter appointee. The dissent says the Secretary of State has “indentured” Jolivette to the Republican Party, and that the Secretary of State is always free to try to persuade Jolivette to remain a Republican but the Secretary of State should not be allowed to prevent Jolivette from changing his partisan associations.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sends Photo Voter-ID Case Back to Lower Court

Posted on by September 18, 2012
3

On September 18, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued this opinion in Applewhite v Commonwealth, 71 MAP 2012. This is the case over whether the new law, requiring voters at the polls to show government photo-ID, violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. The decision says that the lower court, which had upheld the law last month, must reconsider the case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion says that when the Commonwealth Court upheld the law, the Commonwealth Court was guessing about too many variables concerning exactly how the new law will work. Therefore, the Commonwealth Court is instructed to hear the case again, this time with a better record. The vote was 5-2. The two dissenters would simply have invalidated the law. Thanks to Michael McDonald for the link.

Libertarian Party of Michigan Again Asks Sixth Circuit to Rule that Presidential Primaries Do Not Implicate “Sore Loser” Laws

Posted on by September 18, 2012
5

On September 17, the Libertarian Party of Michigan filed this brief in the 6th circuit, in Libertarian Party of Michigan v Johnson, 10-2175. This is the original case, filed to get former Governor Gary Johnson on the ballot. The 6th circuit already refused to issue an injunction, halting ballot-printing. This brief gets to the merits of the case, and asks that the Sixth Circuit rule that presidential primaries are not the kind of primary that “sore loser” laws apply to, and also asks that former Governor Johnson’s name, along with the party’s vice-presidential nominee and its presidential electors, be put on the ballot or recognized as legitimate candidates for whom votes will be counted. UPDATE: the Sixth Circuit will request a quick response from the Secretary of State.

Also on September 17, a U.S. District Court in the “other” Michigan Libertarian presidential ballot access case canceled the hearing set for September 18, and ruled that the case to get Gary Johnson of Texas on the ballot (assuming the first case doesn’t win) has procedural problems that forego relief. That case is Gelineau v Ruth Johnson.

Also in the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court still hasn’t made a ruling either way in the original case, which asks the Court to either halt ballot-printing, or simply order Michigan to print Governor Johnson on the ballot.

U.S. Court of Appeals Relaxes Disclosure Rules for Tax-Exempt Organizations

Posted on by September 18, 2012
1

On September 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, reversed the U.S. District Court in Van Hollen v FEC, no. 12-5117. The D.C. Circuit opinion has the effect of canceling a 2007 Federal Election Commission ruling that requires tax-exempt groups to report the name of everyone who contributes at least $1,000 to that group, if that tax-exempt group spends money advocating support or opposition to federal candidates.

Under the new D.C. Circuit ruling, only the names of donors who contribute with the intent that the contribution be used for campaigns must be disclosed. The new decision reimposes the old FEC rule that had been created in 2002. The old rule only requires disclosure of donors who specifically want their donations to be used for campaigning. The new decision eases the paperwork requirement for tax-exempt groups. The decision is per curiam and is signed by Judges Janice Rogers Brown, a Bush Jr. appointee; Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee; and A. Raymond Bush, a Bush Sr. appointee. The new decision reverses the U.S. District Court.

The FEC had not appealed the order of the U.S. District Court, but some intervening tax-exempt groups had appealed, so technically the name of the case then changed from Van Hollen v FEC to Center for Individual Freedom v FEC.