Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Allows Electronic Signatures That Weren’t Exactly In the Proper Form

Posted on by August 3, 2020
1

On August 3, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a unanimous ruling in Brady v State Ballot Law Commission, SJC-12979. The Court explained why Helen Brady, Republican candidate for U.S. House, 9th district, should be on the September 1 primary ballot. She submitted more than the needed 1,000 signatures of registered Republicans and registered independents. All of her signatures were electronic. But they didn’t follow precisely the new directions for electronic signatures that the same court had approved in April 2020. The Ballot Law Commission had removed her from the ballot, but on July 10, the Court had put her back, without explanation. The August 3 decision explains the reasoning.

The decision has very good general language about ballot access. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

U.S. District Court Sets Briefing Schedule for Jo Jorgensen Maine Ballot Access Case

Posted on by August 3, 2020
1

On August 3, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Torresen held a status conference in Jorgensen v Dunlap, 1:20cv-272. This case asks for ballot access relief in Maine for the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. The state’s brief is due August 10 and any reply is due the next day. A decision is likely by the middle of August.

The Secretary of State will announce on Friday, August 7, whether Jorgensen has enough signatures. If she does, the case will be moot.

Fourth Circuit Refuses to Rehear Decision Upholding March Petition Deadline for Independent Presidential Petitions

Posted on by August 3, 2020
4

On August 3, the Fourth Circuit refused to rehear Buscemi v Bell, 19-2355. This is the July 9 decision that said North Carolina’s March 3 independent presidential candidate petition is constitutional. The Fourth Circuit decision is contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze, which said that Ohio’s March 20 deadline was unconstitutional. In 52 years of federal jurisprudence on ballot access, there has never been such a flagrant contempt for U.S. Supreme Court precedent from any Circuit Court.