U.S. District Court Denies Reconsideration in Case Over Whether Illinois Legislator Michael Madigan Recruited a Sham Candidate in 2016

On May 23, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew F. Kennelly denied reconsideration in Gonzales v Madigan, n.d., 1:16cv-7915. The request had been pending since September 20, 2019. The case was filed in 2016 by an Illinois Democratic primary candidate, Jason Gonzales, against his primary opponent, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. Gonzales had charged that Madigan had found a “sham” candidate with a Hispanic surname to enter their primary, so as to split the vote of Democratic primary voters who might want to vote for anyone with a Hispanic name. The district is majority-Hispanic.

The lawsuit was based on a Seventh Circuit opinion from 1973, Smith v Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098, which said that recruiting a sham candidate can be a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Gonzales case is now so old, it will be interesting to see if Gonzales appeals.

Minnesota Democratic Party Now Seems to Favor Equality in Order of Candidates on Ballot

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party filed a lawsuit last year against the state’s law on ballot order of candidates on the general election ballot for partisan races. The law says the top line should be for the nominees of the ballot-qualified party with the smallest amount of support (as measured in the previous general election). The next line is for the second-weakest ballot-qualified party, etc. Because Minnesota had only the Republican and Democratic-Farmer-Labor Parties as qualified parties before 2018, that meant that for 2018, the Republican Party had the top line, followed by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

In November 2018, however, two more parties became ballot-qualified: (1) Legal Marijuana Now; (2) Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis. This meant that for 2020, the nominees of those two new parties would be on the top two lines, Republicans would be next, and finally Democrats. Underneath them would be the nominees of the unqualified parties and the independent candidates, in order of filing their petitions.

The Democratic Party lawsuit is still pending. On May 11, both sides submitted a joint statement regarding potential relief. The Democratic Party now favors rotating the names of all candidates (even the nominees of unqualified parties) within each precinct, so each candidate would have an equal chance to be listed first within each precinct. The state prefers a lottery, in which the four qualified parties would participate to determine the order for them only, for the entire state. Here is the Joint statement. Pavek v Simon, 0:19cv-2995. U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Nelson will now presumably pick one of these two choices.

Minnesota Governor Signs Bill Allowing Electronic Signatures on Candidate Petitions

On May 12, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed HF 3429. It allows general election candidate petitions this year to be electronic. It also extends the deadline for a qualified party to notify the state of its presidential nominee from August 11 to August 28. The bill does not extend the deadline for independent presidential petitions, and that deadline continues to be August 18.

Nevada Decision on Electronic Signatures for Initiatives Will be Issued Week of May 24-30

U.S. District Court Judge Miranda Du says she will rule in Fair Maps Nevada v Cegavske, 3:20cv-271, sometime during the week of May 24-30. The oral argument was May 21. See this story. The issue is whether Nevada statewide initiatives can use electronic signatures, and whether the June petition deadline should be extended.

U.S. District Court Sets Hearing in New Jersey Case Over Out-of-State Circulators for Primary Petitions

On May 22, U.S. District Court Judge Peter G. Sheridan issued an order in Wilmoth v Guadagno, a New Jersey case over the state’s ban on out-of-state circulators for primary petitions. New Jersey no longer limits out-of-state circulators for general election petitions. The state says the ban on out-of-state circulators for primary petitions is to protect the associational rights of political parties.

Judge Sheridan had upheld the law on March 24, 2017, but on April 19, 2018, the Third Circuit had remanded the case back to him, and said that he must apply strict scrutiny. On May 22, 2020, Judge Sheridan said a hearing is needed to develop facts. It will be July 22, 23, and 27.

This is one of the oldest ballot access cases in the nation. It was filed in early 2016.