U.S. District Court Finds that New Mexico has not been in Compliance with National "Motor Voter" Law

On December 21, a U.S. District Court in New Mexico ruled that welfare offices in that state have not been following the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.  The 23-page decision is Vladez v Herrera, 09-668 JCH.  The national law requires welfare agencies to distribute blank voter registration cards to everyone who does business with the agencies, unless the person says in writing that he or she doesn’t want a form.  But in New Mexico, the welfare forms ask the person filling out the form if he or she wants a blank voter registration card.  The New Mexico form also says if people fail to answer that question, they will not be given a form.

U.S. District Court Finds that New Mexico has not been in Compliance with National “Motor Voter” Law

On December 21, a U.S. District Court in New Mexico ruled that welfare offices in that state have not been following the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.  The 23-page decision is Vladez v Herrera, 09-668 JCH.  The national law requires welfare agencies to distribute blank voter registration cards to everyone who does business with the agencies, unless the person says in writing that he or she doesn’t want a form.  But in New Mexico, the welfare forms ask the person filling out the form if he or she wants a blank voter registration card.  The New Mexico form also says if people fail to answer that question, they will not be given a form.

Alaska Supreme Court Affirms Lower Court, Says Write-ins May be Misspelled

On December 22, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a unanimous 24-page opinion, agreeing with the lower court, in Miller v Treadwell, S-14112.  This is the case in which Joe Miller, Republican nominee for U.S. Senator from Alaska, had argued that many write-in votes for Lisa Murkowski should not be counted.  The lower court had interpreted the law not to require perfect spelling.  But the lower court had also ruled that write-in votes are invalid when the voter forgets, or doesn’t know, to fill in the oval next to the name written in.  The Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the lower court on both those points, and on all the other points.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

The decision is heavy on good rhetoric about respecting the intent of each voter.  The part of the decision that disallows write-ins when the voter didn’t fill in the oval is inconsistent with that rhetoric, but the Court didn’t seem to recognize the contradiction.

California Secretary of State Posts Rules for Another Special Election, Sets One & One-Half Days to Collect Signatures in Lieu of Filing Fee

On the afternoon of December 22, the California Secretary of State posted the requirements for candidates to run in the special election for State Senate, 17th district, in northern Los Angeles County.  She says a candidate who does not wish to pay the filing fee may avoid the fee by collecting 3,000 signatures of registered voters on December 22 and December 23.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that the U.S. Constitution requires an alternative to filing fees, at least for poor candidates.  And in 1974, the California Supreme Court ruled in Donovan v Brown that an alternative to the filing fee must be available to all candidates, rich or poor.  A petitioning period of one and one-half days obviously does not satisfy due process.  It is unparalleled in U.S. history for any state to require a candidate to collect 3,000 valid signatures in a single legislative district in just one and one-half days.

The vacancy was created when State Senator George Runner resigned on December 21.  The election is on February 15.

California Secretary of State Posts Rules for Another Special Election, Sets One & One-Half Days to Collect Signatures in Lieu of Filing Fee

On the afternoon of December 22, the California Secretary of State posted the requirements for candidates to run in the special election for State Senate, 17th district, in northern Los Angeles County.  She says a candidate who does not wish to pay the filing fee may avoid the fee by collecting 3,000 signatures of registered voters on December 22 and December 23.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that the U.S. Constitution requires an alternative to filing fees, at least for poor candidates.  And in 1974, the California Supreme Court ruled in Donovan v Brown that an alternative to the filing fee must be available to all candidates, rich or poor.  A petitioning period of one and one-half days obviously does not satisfy due process.  It is unparalleled in U.S. history for any state to require a candidate to collect 3,000 valid signatures in a single legislative district in just one and one-half days.

The vacancy was created when State Senator George Runner resigned on December 21.  The election is on February 15.