On March 27, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers signed HB 223. It outlaws out-of-state circulators for candidate petitions and recall peetitions, except that it permits them for presidential candidate petitions.
The new law is likely unconstitutional. Wisconsin is in the Seventh Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit ruled in 2000 in an Illinois case that states cannot ban out-of-state circulators.
each USA State is a mini-nation-state
internal politics – outsiders = none of your business
1 amdt petitions = NOT ballot access petitions
— standard SCOTUS perversion of olde words/phrases
dates of first state candidate ballot access petition / issue petition ??? LONG AFTER 1789-1791
Courts have been known to overrule prior rulings.
The nAZi-666 spambot is once again not answering Ifo’s questions.
The 7th circuit was playing some 7th degree game of telephone with the constitution in that y2k ruling.
Being a petition circulator is an exercise of a right in the U S constitutional. It is not voting. It is not eligibility to hold an office. This bill attempts to make petition circulators de facto government employees of the state. It is probably also a violation of the commerce clause.
“Being a petition circulator is an exercise of a right in the U S constitutional (sic).”
No. The relevant text is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress isn’t making any laws here, and even if you accept the court misinterpretation of the improperly adopted 14th amendment that “congress” also means state legislatures (it doesn’t), state initiatives (as substitute for legislation) and ballot access petitions (for candidates or parties on government printed ballots) did not exist in any state or at the federal level until the late 19th century. For a change of pace, the AZ-666 BOT is correct, ballot access petitions are not First Amendment petitions.
And even if they were, the petitioners per the right to petition would be the signers, not the signature solicitors.
“It is not voting. It is not eligibility to hold an office.”
It’s interference in a State’s lawmaking process. Equivalent state laws are those which limit a State’s legislators, governors, and representatives in the federal congress to that State’s residents. Also roughly equivalent are State laws requiring Attorneys to be licensed in that State, as well as State laws limiting out of state contributions to political campaigns, etc.
“This bill attempts to make petition circulators de facto government employees of the state.”
No. Not even close. BTW it is now a law, not a bill.
“It is probably also a violation of the commerce clause.”
See above.
You are probably referring to
“ No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
That’s plainly nothing like this law.
The only other reference to commerce is
(Congress shall have the power) … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Again, not applicable.
Blew a tag. Last sentence was mine.
Gov. Tony Evers and the AZ-666 spambot aren’t often right, but they are both right in this case, and D. Frank Robinson is wrong as usual.