Law Journal Article Compares Presidential Electors with Jurors

Law Professor Jeffrey Abramson has this interesting article in Emory Law Journal, comparing presidential electors to jurors.  He notes that jurors are asked to pledge that they will follow the judge’s instructions as to the relevant law.  But if jurors return a verdict that contradicts the judge’s understanding of the law, we do not punish the jurors.

The article talks about a time long ago in England when jurors were punished by a lower court judge, but then a higher English court reversed their convictions.

The article could have been better if, when it talked about Ray v Blair, a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court opinion about presidential electors, it explained that the case involved a pledge before a candidate could get on the Alabama Democratic primary ballot.  Back then the Alabama Democratic Party chose its presidential elector candidates in a primary.  No state currently does that.  The article probably will lead most readers to assume Alabama had a pledge for actual presidential electors, not just candidates for presidential elector from one particular party.

Also the article says that all 39 electoral votes received by Strom Thurmond in 1948 were from electors who violated their pledge.  Actually Strom Thurmond won the popular vote in the states that produced those presidential electors.  He got more popular votes than Harry Truman in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi.  And in Alabama, Truman wasn’t even on the ballot, so obviously Thurmond won.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

During Last Fifty Years, Over One-Third of U.S. House Elections in Massachusetts Had Only One Candidate on Ballot

For the period 1970 through 2018, over one-third of all Massachusetts U.S. House elections had only one candidate on the November ballot.  During the same period, no  other state had as many as 25% of its races with only one person on the ballot.

The reason Massachusetts has had so many uncontested races for that office is because it has the nation’s most severe petition requirement to get on a primary ballot.  It requires 2,000 signatures.  No other state has such a high requirement for U.S. House primary ballot access.

Also, Massachusetts has rather severe laws for independent candidates to get on the ballot.  And the state has consistently made the requirements more difficult over the years.  In 1952, the Prohibition Party ran almost a full slate of candidates for U.S. House.  In 1953, in response, the law was amended to make it more difficult for convention parties to run for district office.

In 1973, the legislature eliminated provision for small ballot-qualified parties to nominate by convention, and provided that all qualified parties had to nominate by primary.  This was a severe blow, because the petitions for candidates to get on primary ballots was difficult.

In the 1990’s decade, Massachusetts had three ballot-qualified minor parties at one time or another, the most it had had in any decade since the 1940’s.  This came about because the voters had passed an initiative in 1990, easing the definition of a qualified party.  In 1998 the legislature doubled the number of signatures needed for a small qualified party to place candidates on its primary ballot.

U.S. District Court Orally Sets Petitioning Relief for Illinois Minor Party and Independent Candidates

On April 21, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, a Clinton appointee, orally described substantial relief she intends to order for minor party and independent candidates for the Illinois 2020 election.  Candidates will need 10% of the original legal requirement.  The petition deadline is extended from June 22 to August 7.  Signatures can be obtained on a signer’s computer via an electronic signature, although the candidate or party must then print out the results and transport a piece of paper to election officials.  The order is being drafted but does not yet exist on paper.

UPDATE:  here is a new story in the Herald & Review, the daily newspaper for Decatur.

Also, if a minor party was on the ballot in either 2016 or 2018 for an office that is up in 2020, then it is automatically on the ballot for those same offices in 2020.  This means that the Libertarian and Green Parties are now on the ballot in 2020 for President and U.S. Senate with no petition.  Also the Green Party is now on the ballot automatically for two U.S. House seats, the fifth and twelfth districts.  Unfortunately there were no third parties on the ballot in either 2016 or 2018 for any legislative seats.

The case is Libertarian Party of Illinois v Pritzker, n.d., 1:20cv-2112.  Statewide candidates for president and U.S. Senate, other than Libertarians and Greens, will need 2,500 signatures.

The state had said that it could not live with a deadline as late as August 7, but the judge still said she intends to order it.  The minor party petition in Illinois was due in early August in all the years 1931 through 1999.  Before 1931, it was in September, and it was in October from 1891 through 1929.

The basis for the order is that Illinois law requires independent and minor party petitions to circulate between late March and late June, a period of time entirely within the health crisis period.  If Illinois didn’t ban circulating petitions before late March, it would have been in a better legal position.  Before 1985 Illinois minor party and independent candidate petitions could be circulated as early as desired.  UPDATE:  here is a one-page statement from the court saying some relief is being granted, the details of which will be described on paper shortly.

Georgia Voters File New Lawsuit to Stop Touchscreen Voting Machines

On April 20, a group of Georgia voters filed a new federal lawsuit against the state’s touchscreen voting machines, alleging that they could cause transmission of the Covid-19 virus.  The lawsuit argues that the state should use paper ballots, as most states do.  By contrast to paper ballots, the touchscreen machines involve many voters touching the same surface.  Coalition for Good Governance v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:20cv-1677.  The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten, a Bush Jr. appointee.  Here is the Complaint. 

Georgia has had persistent activism against touchscreen machines for a decade.  The original opposition to them was based on the lack of a reliable audit trail.

The lawsuit also argues that the primary should be moved from June 9 to June 30.