Ballot Access News

On November 24, the First Circuit ruled 2-1 that the U.S. Constitution does not permit any voting representatives for Puerto Rico in the U.S. House of Representatives, notwithstanding treaties that the U.S. has signed to protect voting rights for all adult U.S. citizens.  The case is Igartua v United States of America, 09-2186.  The government of Puerto Rico had joined the voter-plaintiff in support of the lawsuit, and an attorney for the government of Puerto Rico had been permitted to participate in oral argument.  Here is the decision.

Each of the three judges on the panel wrote separately.  Judge Sandra Lynch wrote 31 pages for the Court.  Judge Kermit Lipez wrote 14 pages to say that although he agrees that plaintiffs should not prevail, he feels the case is important enough that all the judges of the First Circuit should have participated in an en banc hearing.  Judge Juan Torruella wrote a passionate dissent of 63 pages.  Judge Turruella notes in a footnote that in 1898, while Spain still owned Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican voters chose 6 Senators and 12 Delegates to the Spanish Parliament, the Cortes, in Madrid.  Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link.

On October 8, 2009, a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island had struck down a Central Falls city ordinance that made it illegal for a voter to sign petitions for two candidates running against each other for the same office.  The city had appealed to the First Circuit.  But on November 3, 2010, the First Circuit said the city’s appeal is moot.  This is partly because the Rhode Island legislature passed a law in 2010 that requires all towns to let voters sign as many petitions as they wish.  Fontes v City of Central Falls, 09-2516.

Even before the case started, it had already been the law in Rhode Island that voters could sign as many petitions (for the same office) for federal and state office as they wished.  The case only arose because some towns in Rhode Island had a more restrictive policy.

The November 23 edition of the New York Times has a lengthy and respectful obituary for David Nolan.  The obituary is also notable for seeming to suggest that minor parties have an important influence on the free circulation of ideas, even when they are not numerically strong.

UPDATE:  the Washington Post obituary also has some of the characteristics of the Times obituary.