Socialist Equality Party Runs Candidate for Michigan Legislature

Posted on by
4

The Socialist Equality Party, a national political party headquartered in Michigan, has one candidate in the November 2, 2010 election.  He is D’Artagnan Collier, running for Michigan State House, district 9 in Detroit.  Here is his web page.  Because Michigan does not permit a political party to be ballot-qualified in just a single district (instead it must qualify for the entire state), he is on the ballot as an independent candidate.

The other parties with “Socialist” in their name, that have any candidates on the ballot in partisan races this year, are the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Socialist Action Party.  The Party for Socialism and Liberation is not on the ballot under its own name in any state in 2010, but some of its members are Peace & Freedom Party nominees in California this year.

Conservative and Working Families Party Sue New York State Board of Elections over Vote-Counting

Posted on by
5

On September 14, the New York Conservative Party, and the New York Working Families Party, jointly filed a lawsuit in federal court over how votes are counted.  The problem, which is a new problem in New York state this year, is that some voters inevitably vote for the same candidate twice when that voter sees the name of a preferred candidate who is listed twice on the ballot, once under each party label.

This was not a problem (except for a tiny number of ballots cast on paper absentee votes) until this year.  Before this year, votes in New York were almost entirely cast on mechanical voting machines, and the machines physically prevented voters from making that error.  Under the new system, the Board credits the vote to the party that is listed first on the ballot.  The Democratic and Republican Parties have the first and second lines on the ballot, so they get credit for the vote, not the minor party.  The case is Conservative Party of New York et al v New York State Board of Elections, 10cv-6923, southern district.  It was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff, a Clinton appointee.  Thanks to Joseph Lorenzo Hall for the news.  The lawsuit is being handled by the Brennan Center.

U.S. Supreme Court Asks for Response in Roland Burris Lawsuit on Special U.S. Senate Election

Posted on by
1

On September 14, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer asked for a response from the Appellees in Burris v Judge, 10A272.  This is the case in which U.S. Senator Roland Burris of Illinois argues that the lower federal courts overstepped their authority when they told Illinois whom to print on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the special U.S. Senate election.

The U.S. District Court Judge in this case had ordered that everyone who is on the ballot for the 6-year regular term should also be on the ballot for the special 2-month term, and no one else could run in the special election.

If the U.S. Supreme Court acts on the side of Senator Burris, one possible relief would be to simply cancel the special election.  Another possibility would be for Illinois to hold a special election with no names on the ballot, and depend on write-ins to elect someone to the 2-month term.  This is how California handled a similar election in November 1946.  A third possibility would be that state party committees be authorized to choose a party nominee in the special election, although that solution would still leave the problem of how independent candidates could qualify for the special election.  In 1986, when Michigan had no statutory procedure for independent candidates to get on the ballot, the Secretary of State simply placed any independent candidate on the ballot who requested to be on, which worked well.

No Appeal Will be Filed in Tancredo Ballot Access Case

Posted on by
2

The two Colorado voters who had sued the Secretary of State, arguing that Tom Tancredo should not be on the ballot, have decided not to appeal, so it is certain that Tancredo will be on the ballot.  Thanks to John Duffy for this news.

The state district court ruling will be a useful precedent for ballot-qualified minor parties in Colorado in the future, giving them flexibility to replace their original nominees with replacement nominees who had not been previously registered members of that party.

First Circuit Hears Massachusetts Libertarian Presidential Substitution Lawsuit

Posted on by
1

On September 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, held oral arguments in Barr v Galvin, the Massachusetts case over whether unqualified parties may use stand-in presidential candidates on their petition, and then substitute the actual presidential candidate later.  The three judges were Michael Boudin, Bruce Selya, and Kenneth Ripple.  Judge Ripple is a visiting judge from Indiana.

In 2008, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party was not a ballot-qualified party, so it needed to submit a petition to be on the November 2008 ballot for president.  The party had asked the Massachusetts Secretary of State if it could use a stand-in presidential candidate on its petition, because the party wouldn’t know who its actual presidential candidate was going to be until the national convention at the end of May 2008.  Massachusetts said “Yes”.  Later, the state changed its mind and refused to list Bob Barr on the ballot.  The party sued and won in U.S. District Court in time for relief.  The state then filed its appeal.

All three judges participated in the oral argument and all three seemed very familiar with the facts in the case.  They questioned both sides about whether the case is moot, but both sides agreed that the issue is not moot because it will recur in future presidential elections.  The panel gave the impression that they believe the Massachusetts policy on whether or not presidential stand-ins are permitted is too vague to survive.