On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Libertarian Party of Ohio v Crites, 21-226. This is the case over the composition of the Ohio Election Commission. Ohio law says the members of the Commission must be three members of the two largest parties (as measured by which two parties have the most seats in the legislature), and a member chosen by the other six who is not a member of any party. Thus a minor party member may never serve.

The Court’s action continues a 30-year unbroken refusal by the court to accept any cert petition filed by a minor party or independent candidate, unless the two major parties were also in the case on the same side as the minor party. Yet during that 30-year period the court accepted six cert petitions filed when the minor party or independent candidate had won in the court below, and the state sought Supreme Court review. They include cases on ballot access, fusion, party freedom to decide for itself to let independents vote in its primaries, debates, and exclusion of independent and minor party candidates from serving as a state court judge.

Here is a short Associated Press article on the refusal.

Ballot Access News
October 2021 – Volume 37, Number 5

1. TWO NEW YORK COURTS ENJOIN EARLY PETITION DEADLINE, BUT THEN HIGHER COURTS BLOCK RELIEF
2. CALIFORNIA BALLOT ACCESS BILL PASSES
3. NEW ELECTION LAW BILL IN U.S. SENATE
4. GEORGIA U.S. HOUSE BALLOT ACCESS
5. CAMPAIGN FINANCE RESTRICTIONS OVERTURNED IN ALASKA AND NEW YORK
6. DEMOCRATS LOSE BALLOT ORDER CASE IN WEST VIRGINIA
7. EIGHTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS MINNESOTA PETITION WORDING
8. BOOK REVIEW: BEYOND TWO PARTIES
9. LAWSUIT NEWS
10. WHICH MINOR PARTY RAN THE MOST STATE HOUSE CANDIDATES?
11. ANDREW YANG SAYS HE WILL START A NEW POLITICAL PARTY
12. CALIFORNIA RECALL ELECTION
13. FEC PUBLISHES USEFUL BOOK
14. 2022 PETITIONING
15. ADLAI STEVENSON III DIES
16. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

On October 25, the California State Court of Appeals, 2nd district, reversed the trial court and issued an opinion protecting the rights of initiatives. Starr v Chaparro, B307585. Here is the opinion.

Proponents of term limits for the city of Oxnard had submitted an initiative petition. The city refused to put it on the March 3, 2020 ballot, even though it had enough valid signatures. When the city had received the initiative petition, it instead passed the contents of that initiative as an ordinance. This was a hypocritical move, because the city did not favor that particular initiative. Then the city also put their own measure on the ballot, which altered the initiative in a manner that the proponents did not favor. Because there was then only one measure concerning city term limits on the ballot, the voters passed the measure that the city wanted, which automatically cancelled out the ordinance.

The state court ruled that the initiative had a right to be on the ballot, and said the city must put it on a future ballot sometime during the next six months. In California, when a ballot measure passes, it cannot be repealed or altered without another vote of the people (unless the ballot measure specifically makes an exception to that general rule).