U.S. District Court Won’t Let Arizona Initiative Groups Gather Electronic Signatures

Posted on by April 19, 2020
1

On April 17, U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Lanza refused to order Arizona to allow initiative proponents to gather electronic signatures.  Arizonans for Fair Elections v Hobbs, 2:20cv-658.  Here is the 30-page opinion.

The same issue is pending in the Arizona State Supreme Court, in another case, Arizonans for Second Chances Rehabilitation v Hobbs, cv-20-98-SA.  Briefing in that case will be complete by April 27, and the State Supreme Court will then issue an opinion without first holding oral argument

The federal decision points out that the Arizona Constitution appears to mandate old-fashioned pieces of paper for initiative petitions.  Article IV, sec. 9, says, “Each petition shall contain the declaration of each petitioner, for himself, that he is a qualified voter of the state.  Each sheet containing petition signatures shall be attached to a full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure, and every sheet of every such petition shall be verified by the affidavit of the person who circulated such sheet…”.  Plaintiffs chose not to challenge the constitutionality of that part of the Arizona Constitution.  Instead they argued that electronic signatures substantially comply with the Constitution, but the judge disagreed, and wrote, “The signature requirements Plaintiffs seek to displace have been a part of Arizona’s constitutional and electoral landscape for over a century.”

He also said that it isn’t clear how electronic signatures for initiatives would work, given that the statute says election officials should use a random sample to check signatures on initiative petitions.

Courts in Past Have Ruled that if Ballot Access is Impossible, and the Plaintiff Has a Modicum of Support, Courts Should Put Them on Ballot

Posted on by April 19, 2020
12

Federal courts have ruled in the past that if ballot access is impossible, or virtually impossible, and a party or a candidate who wants to be on the ballot sues, and shows evidence of a modicum of support, then the court should put that party or candidate on the ballot even if it submits few if any signatures or does no other substantial work to qualify.

U.S. Supreme Court examples:   (1) Eugene McCarthy was put on the Texas ballot as an independent presidential candidate in 1976 even though he did not submit any signatures.  McCarthy v Briscoe, 429 US 1317 (1976); (2) the National Democratic Party of Alabama (an African-American Party not affiliated with the Democratic Party) was put on the ballot for county office in Hadnott v Amos, 394 US 358 (1969); (3) an independent US Senate candidate, Clifton Whitley, was put on the ballot by a 3-judge US District Court Judge in Mississippi in 1966, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision with a full opinion, Allan v State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969); (4) several minor parties were put on the Michigan ballot in 1976 by a 3-judge U.S. District Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed that decision, 430 US 924 (1977).  The lower court decision cite is 419 F.Supp.1002 (e.d. 1976).

US Court of Appeals examples:  (1) the Fifth Circuit put McCarthy on in Florida in 1976 even though he didn’t petition.  McCarthy v Askew, 540 F 2d 1254 (back then, Florida was in the Fifth Circuit because the Eleventh Circuit didn’t exist); (2) the Sixth Circuit put a Communist Party candidate on the Michigan ballot for State Board of Education.  Goldman-Frankie v Austin, 727 F.2d 603 (1984); (3) the Ninth Circuit put the Populist Party on the Idaho ballot in 1984 even though it only collected fewer than 300 signatures.  Populist Party v Evans, not reported, 84-4108.

US District Court examples:  (1) Tennessee 2012, the Green and Constitution Parties were put on the ballot, Green Party of Tn. v Hargett, 882 F.Supp.2d 959 (m.d.); (2) Kansas 1982, the Libertarian Party was put on, Reagan v State of Kansas, unreported, 82-4083; (3) Michigan 1980, Communist Party presidential nominee Gus Hall was put in the ballot, Hall v Austin, 495 F.Supp.782 (e.d.); (4) Ohio 2014, four minor parties were put on the ballot, Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, order of January 7, 2014 not reported, s.d., 2:13cv-953; (5) Ohio 1970, Socialist Labor Party put on ballot, Socialist Labor Party v Rhodes, 318 F.Supp. 1262 (s.d.); (6) Michigan 1988, Lenora Fulani put on the ballot as an independent for president, not reported, e.d., 88cv-72331; (7) Delaware 1976, Eugene McCarthy put on ballot, 421 F.Supp.1193.

 

Poll Shows 5% of Voters Won’t Vote for Either Trump or Biden, Even Though They Weren’t Asked

Posted on by April 19, 2020
12

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on April 19 shows that when respondents are asked if they support President Trump, or Joe Biden, or aren’t sure, 5% of them volunteer that they won’t vote for either of the two named candidates.  See the poll here.  Scroll down to Question Six.

The full results are:  Biden 49%, Trump 42%, not sure 4%, and 5% volunteered “someone else” even though they weren’t asked about that alternative.  Thanks to Political Wire for the link.

U.S. District Court Won’t Grant Injunctive Relief to Illinois Initiative Proponents

Posted on by April 18, 2020
12

On April 17, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer declined to grant injunctive relief to help proponents of two Illinois initiatives, one statewide and one local.  They had asked for a cut in the number of signatures and permission to submit electronic signatures.  The case is still alive.  Plaintiffs will file a brief by May 13.  Morgan v White, n.d., 1:20cv-2189.  Thanks to Sam Cahnman for this news.