Pennsylvania Township Suspends Ordinance Requiring Permits for Political Signs

On September 28, South Whitehall Township in eastern Pennsylvania said it will no longer require permits before property owners can put up lawn signs on their own property, advocating a vote for any particular party or candidate.  The township had been sued in federal court by a Democratic Party nominee for requiring $5 permits.  See this story.  Thanks to Larry Otter for the link.

Virginia State Court Says Non-Partisan Group May See List of Which Voters Voted

On October 1, a Virginia state circuit court in Richmond granted a preliminary injunction, allowing the group called “The Know Campaign” to obtain the list of which voters voted in the last election.  “The Know Campaign” is a non-partisan group that wishes to increase voter turnout.  It believes that if ordinary voters know that whether or not they vote becomes a public record, they will be more likely to vote.

The list of which voters cast a ballot in the last election is not the same as the list of registered voters.  Some years ago a Virginia court had ruled that the list of who voted cannot be limited just to political parties and candidates, and ruled that Political Action Groups can see that list.  The legislature then expanded the list of groups that can see the list to include PAC’s.  Earlier this year the legislature considered expanding the list further.  The Senate passed the bill, but then the House completely altered the bill’s impact, and ruled that no one can see the list.  The Senate didn’t approve that version of the bill, so no legislative action was taken.

The lawsuit is The Know Campaign v Rodrigues, cl-09-005389-00.  UPDATE:  here is the court order.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sends Carl Stevenson Ballot Access Case Back to Commonwealth Court

On October 4, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued this 7-page opinion in In re:  the Nomination Petitions and Papers of Carl Stevenson, 54 MAP 2010.  Carl Stevenson is an independent candidate for the legislature.  The issue is whether a Pennsylvania law making it illegal to circulate a petition outside the circulator’s home district is constitutional.  The Commonwealth Court had ruled that the law is constitutional, and had invalidated the petition because so many of the petitions had been circulated by someone who lives in another Pennsylvania legislative district.  UPDATE:  see this commentary about the case.

The Supreme Court sent the case back and told the Commonwealth Court to finish the process of validating all signatures.  There is a possibility that Stevenson doesn’t have enough valid signatures, even if the signatures collected by the out-of-district circulators are counted.  If Stevenson doesn’t have enough valid signatures even when those are counted, no court in this case then needs to decide the constitutional issue.  But if Stevenson does have enough signatures, then the state courts in this case must grapple with the constitutional issue.

It is true that the Commonwealth Court had superficially upheld the residency requirement, but the State Supreme Court order seems to think that the Commonwealth Court didn’t really settle the issue.  The Supreme Court order says, “Neither the lower court nor appellees (i.e., the challengers) have forwarded any substantive justification of the court’s rejection of appellant’s First Amendment argument…The Court never offered any substantive evaluation of First Amendment principles to support its rejection of appellants’s argument, and the cases it cites likewise do not engage the merits of appellant’s First Amendment argument…The Court, in short…didn’t engage his arguments in meaningful fashion…There is nothing in the record or the pleadings below providing a basis for this Court to affirm the existing decision removing appellant from the ballot.”

The last paragraph of the Supreme Court asks the lower court to hold an “immediate hearing” with the word “immediate” in bold type.  The Commonwealth Court has already set a hearing for Thursday, October 7, at 1:30 p.m. in Harrisburg.

Appeal Filed in California Write-in, Party Labels Case

On September 29, the voter-plaintiffs and candidate-plaintiffs in Field v Bowen filed an appeal in the California State Court of Appeals.  The case number in the First District is A129829.  This is the case over two details of the California top-two law, the ban on counting write-ins, and the discriminatory provision which lets some candidates have their party preference on the ballot, but denies this ability to other candidates.  On September 30 the State Court of Appeals refused to stay the lower court denial of injunctive relief.  No court has yet made any ruling on the merits of the case.

Minor Parties to Lose Qualified Status in 5 States this year for Failure to Run Statewide Nominees

In five states this year, one ballot-qualified minor party will lose its status as a qualified party because that party is not running any statewide nominees, or it is not running for the only statewide office that affects qualified status.

In North Dakota, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 5% for Secretary of State.  The Libertarian Party, the only ballot-qualified party other than the two major parties, is running for three statewide offices, but not Secretary of State.  The party had chosen a candidate for Secretary of State but he failed to file for the party’s primary, even though he needed no petition and no filing fee.

In South Dakota, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 2.5% for Governor.  The Constitution Party, the only ballot-qualified party other than the two major parties, has a nominee for Secretary of State, but not Governor.  The petition for a gubernatorial candidate to get on the party’s primary ballot, which can only be signed by registered members of that party, requires 250 signatures, and the party only had about 325 registered members and was unable to complete the petition.  No primary petition was needed for Secretary of State.

In Wisconsin, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 1% for any statewide office.  No candidate gathered the needed 2,000 signatures to appear on the Green Party’s primary ballot for any statewide office.  The Green Party has a very strong nominee for the state legislature, and it would be ironic if that candidate, Ben Manski, were elected, while at the same time his party loses its qualified status.

In Montana, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 5% of the winning candidate’s vote for any statewide race at either of the last two elections.  The Constitution Party did not poll enough votes to meet this test in 2008, and in 2010, its “second chance” election, it is not running for either of the statewide offices, so it will go off the ballot.  Primary candidates don’t need any petition in Montana; they just need to pay a filing fee.

In Massachusetts, a party remains ballot-qualified if it polls 3% for any statewide race.  The Libertarian Party is the only ballot-qualified party other than the two major parties.  No candidate qualified to appear on the Libertarian Party primary ballot, because primary petitions are so difficult.  They require 10,000 signatures for some statewide offices and 5,000 signatures for other, less important, statewide offices.  Only registered members of that party, and registered independents, may sign.

Colorado Republican Party May Lose Status as a Qualified Major Party

A Fox News Poll released several days ago for the Colorado gubernatorial election shows these results:  Hickenlooper, Democrat, 44%; Tancredo, Constitution, 34%; Maes, Republican, 15%; others and undecided 7%.  The share of the vote for the Republican nominee, Dan Maes, has been dropping with each new poll.  If he polls less than 10%, the Republican Party will no longer be a qualified major party and will no longer have a random chance of obtaining the top line on the ballot.  Thanks to Cody Quirk for the link to this news story about the poll.