This Daily Kos article suggests that if Indiana State Courts rule that November 2010 votes for Charlie White are deemed not to have been cast (on the theory that the Republican nominee for Secretary of State, Charlie White, wasn’t eligible to be on the ballot), then the Republican Party would lose qualified status and would need to submit petitions for all its nominees in 2012 and 2014.
UPDATE: however, the Daily Kos author seems unaware that in 2011, the Indiana legislature passed HB 1242, which says that when a state recount commission makes a final determination that a candidate for Secretary of State is not eligible, that determination does not affect the validity of the votes cast. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Pingback: What Else is Potentially at Stake in the Charlie White Matter | Election Law Blog
I am an independent running for the US House Of Representatives in WV 1st district. Our campaign is a grassroots. We are looking for Volunteers to help canvass the area and organize events, carpooling, ect. Help us and Join our cause at : http://raymondvdavisiiiforuscongress.webs.com
What does “the validity of the votes” mean? Seems like if that may be open to interpretation.
How many super-computers are needed to keep track of the EVIL machinations of the EVIL robot party hacks ???
Democracy NOW
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Equal ballot access laws.
So the Republicans and legislature are saying that if one of the state candidates does something wrong, and gets kicked off the ballot, those votes would still count towards ballot access?
#5, yes, and I agree. The votes were cast. They were cast by real voters, and they should be respected. If the winning candidate is shown to be a criminal, the criminal justice system can handle that, but there is no fair basis to pretend that the votes weren’t cast in support of the Republican Party’s ongoing ballot status.
One thing to keep in mind is that if a ballot access law *may* be interpreted in a way that would significantly disadvantage either the Democrats or the Republicans, it won’t be.
And if a ballot access law can *only* be interpreted in a way that would significantly disadvantage the Democrats or the Republicans, it will be amended before the D’s or the R’s actually suffer harm.
(Note that I mean the Democratic or Republican party as a whole — not necessarily individual D or R candidates in a primary. In other words, I’m not talking about the current situation of candidates being left out of the Republican presidential primary.)
I think the Daily Kos diary is right, as this would qualify as an ex post facto law. The election happened before the law was passed. If the Republicans tried to push the law then the Democrats should take them to court. Another thing is the Kos article does not directly say that it definitely will happen, just that it COULD happen. Which it could if Democrats took it to court arguing the ex post facto aspect.
The question comes down to the Indiana Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 1, Section 24 of the Indiana State Constitution:
“No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed.”
If the court determines that the changes to the ‘Major Party’ law are ex-post-facto, then those changes do not apply to the 2010 election after all, and therefore the two major parties of Indiana become the Democrats and the Libertarians, as the top two actual vote-winners of the 2010 Secretary of State race.
“Ex post facto” only relates to criminal law. There are many instances when ballot access laws have been eased and the effects took place immediately. For instance, in 1990 the Democratic Party of Virginia lost its qualified status because it hadn’t polled 10% for any statewide office that year. So the legislature then changed the defintion of “party” to a group that had polled 10% at either of the last two elections. And the instant that bill was signed, the Democratic Party was restored.
First off, I’d like to thank you for bringing some attention to my article, Mr. Winger. It’s greatly appreciated, and I appreciate that you noticed the absence of coverage on the state’s election law passed last spring. I was aware of the matter, but I forgot to note it in my article.
I will admit that I forgot to note on the matter of ex post facto laws in my article, and that is my fault. However, the case I wanted to make is that the IDP could argue that ex post facto laws could be applied to this matter. An election could be interpreted as a contract between election officials and the public, thus bringing into quesiton whether ex post facto laws could be legally implemented. I agree that the matter of ex post facto is only intended for criminal law, but I believe it could be brought into the matter of election law because of the bill’s retroactive nature. It wouldn’t be the easiest case to argue, but there is certainly room for a case on the matter. It is far from written off.
Furthermore, my article was written merely in an academic sense, not one written with certitude. I don’t proclaim to know that something will or will not happen. I merely wished to state the possibilities that could arise from this mess.
Again, thank you for the time, and thank you for noticing my article. I put a lot of time into the article, and I’m glad that it’s gotten so much attention. Have a good evening.