On January 19, Kentucky Representative Jerry T. Miller (R-Eastwood) introduced HB 323, to move the 2022 primary from May to August 2.
Also on January 19, Governor Andy Beshear vetoed the bills that redistrict the U.S. House district boundaries, and also the bill to redraw the state house boundaries. However, it is expected that the legislature will override those vetoes.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has been Secretary of State since 2018. Pacer shows that 49 lawsuits have been filed in federal court against him. Of course, when anyone alleges that an election law is unconstitutional, it is customary to sue the Secretary of State (assuming the Secretary in that state handles elections; in a few states there is a Secretary of State who is not involved with elections).
Not all of the 49 lawsuits necessarily involves elections, because Secretaries of State have duties not related to elections. BAN has not examined all 49 cases, but it is clear that the vast majority are election law cases. One wonders if any other Secretary of State has been the defendant in this many federal lawsuits.
On January 9, Indiana Representative Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced HB 1185, which greatly eases ballot access. It lowers the vote test for qualified party status from 2%, to 2,500 votes. It also lowers the statewide petition for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, from 2% of the last vote for Secretary of State, to 250 signatures.
On January 19, the North Carolina legislature passed HB 605, which moves the 2022 primary from May 17 to June 7. If the bill becomes law, that would also give independent candidates more time to petition. Independent candidate petitions in North Carolina are due on primary day.
On January 20, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in McDougall v County of Ventura, 20-56220. This case is not related to election law. The case concerned the constitutionality of a 48-day shut-down of gun shops and firing ranges by the county government of Ventura County. The three judges in the case agreed that the order violates the Second Amendment. Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote the majority decision, in favor of the plaintiffs who sued the county over its order. The vote was 3-0.
But Judge VanDyke then wrote a concurring opinion, coming to the exact opposite conclusion and upholding the gun rule. His concurrence is a joke, and does not change the outcome. He says he wrote it because invariably, every time a constitutional case relating to guns is in the Ninth Circuit, and the regulation is struck down, every time the losing side then asks for en banc review, and every time the Ninth Circuit grants the en banc rehearing and reverses the original panel. VanDyke says he wrote the concurrence to do a favor to the judges who will inevitably seek to reverse the 3-judge panel. He says he wrote it to save them the time and trouble. His concurrence is a satire, and it ends with the words, “You’re welcome.” Thanks to How Appealing for this news.
