Sixth Circuit Acts to Save the Ohio Initiative Process

Posted on by April 10, 2025
8

On April 9, the Sixth Circuit issued a ruling in Brown v Yost, 25-3179, a long-running lawsuit over Ohio initiative procedures. Here is the 2-1 ruling. The majority consists of Judge Karen Nelson Moore, a Clinton appointee; and Judge Andre Mathis, a Biden appointee. The dissent is by Judge John K. Bush, a Trump appointee.

Ohio law says sponsors of an initiative process cannot begin to circulate their initiative until the Attorney General approves the description that is printed in the petition. In the instance which prompted the lawsuit, the Attorney General had rejected the description eight times, which made it impossible for the proponents to qualify the initiative. The plaintiff had already won the lawsuit in U.S. District Court, but the District Court had stayed its own opinion. The Sixth Circuit has now removed the stay.

Nevada Bill to Restrict Ballot Access Has Hearing on April 10

Posted on by April 10, 2025
1

Nevada Assembly Bill 534 has a hearing on April 10 in the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. It would require independent candidates (for office other than president) to file a declaration of candidacy in February. It is part of an omnibus election law bill sponsored by the committee.

Such laws have been declared unconstitutional in West Virginia, Kentucky, and South Carolina. The precedents are based on Anderson v Celebrezze, which said that states must give independents a chance to get on the ballot after the major parties must identified their candidates. The South Carolina decision, Cromer v State of South Carolina, 917 F 2d 819 (1990), was a US Court of Appeals decision. The other two are U.S. District Court decisions: Kentucky’s is Sweeney v Crigler, 457 F Supp 3d 577 (2019); and West Virginia is Daly v Tennant, 216 F Supp 3d 199 (2016).
);

U.S. District Court Refuses to Enjoin New York Law that Bans “Independence” as a Party Label

Posted on by April 8, 2025
18

On April 7, U.S. District Court Judge Lashann DeArcy Hall, an Obama appointee, refused to enjoin the 2022 New York law that bans “independent” or “Independence” as words that can be part of the name of a party. The judge also assumed that therefore an independent candidate can’t use those labels because if the independent candidate were running for Governor or President and got 2% of the vote, that would create a ballot-qualified party and then that party would have an illegal name.

The judge said the ban is “not severe” because the candidate can campaign as an independent without having that label on the ballot. The decision does not even mention the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision Gralike v Cook, which struck down a Missouri law that put certain labels on the ballot for candidates that injured them. That case clearly established that the First Amendment free speech provision applies to ballot labels. Yet Judge Hall said the First Amendment doesn’t apply to ballot labels.

The plaintiff, Mayoral candidate Jim Walden, has already appealed to the Second Circuit. Walden v Kosinski, 25-764. The Second Circuit is expediting the case and all briefs will be in by April 15.

Oral Argument Set for Cornel West Pennsylvania Ballot Access Case

Posted on by April 8, 2025
Reply

U.S. District Court Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan will hear Cornel West v Pennsylvania Department of State, w.d., 2:24cv-1349, on Wednesday, June 11. The issue is Pennsylvania’s requirement that independent presidential candidates must file a sworn declaration of candidacy for each presidential elector candidate, whereas the parties with 15% of the statewide registration need file no documents signed by their presidential elector candidates whatsoever.