Tennessee Ballot Access Bill Advances

Posted on by March 13, 2020
Reply

On March 11, Tennessee HB 2580 passed the House Election Campaign Finance Subcommittee on a voice vote. It now goes to the full Local Committee. It cuts the number of signatures for a new party from 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote cast (currently 56,083 signatures) to one-half of 1% (11,216). It also eases the vote test, which is now 5% for any statewide race. The new vote test would be 1% for each particular office, so if a party got 1% for president, then it would be on the ballot automatically for president in the next election. Currently the only state in which the vote test for party retention is office-by-office is Connecticut.

The sponsor is Representative Bud Hulsey (R-Kingsport).

New York State Court Invalidates Hostile Ballot Access Changes Made by Public Campaign Finance Commission

Posted on by March 12, 2020
15

On May 12, the New York Supreme Court, Niagara County, invalidated the hostile ballot access changes made by the Public Campaign Finance Commission late last year. Hurley v Public Campaign Finance & Election Commission, E169547/2019. The order says, “The line between administrative rule-making (which can be delegated) and legislative action (which cannot be delegated) has clearly been transgessed. Here is the eleven-page order.

Last year, the legislature gave the Commission the authority to re-write the definition of a qualified political party. The Commission then raised the vote test for party recognition from 50,000 votes for Governor, to the greater of 130,000 votes for president and governor, or 2% of the total vote cast for that office. The commission also raised the number of signatures for a statewide independent, and the nominee of an unqualified party, from 15,000 signatures, to 45,000 signatures, even though the commission was never even asked to consider the petition requirement.

The lawsuit was filed by the Working Families Party. An identical case, filed by the Conservative Party and called Jastrzemski v Commission, was merged into the Working Families Case. Thanks to Bill Redpath and Jim Riley for this news.

Rocky De La Fuente Says His Minnesota Case on Presidential Primary Ballot Access is Moot

Posted on by March 12, 2020
1

On March 3, Rocky De La Fuente filed a brief in U.S. District Court in Minnesota, stating that his case is moot. The case had been filed to challenge the Minnesota law that gives parties the right to determine which candidates should appear on its presidential primary ballot. The Minnesota Republican Party had chosen to list only President Donald J. Trump. De La Fuente v Simon, 0:19cv-2995.

The state then filed a response, saying potentially the case is not moot, because the issue is capable of repetition in future elections, and ballot access cases don’t become moot just because the election is over. However, the state also said that if De La Fuente thinks that the case is moot, and because he said he will not run in presidential primaries in Minnesota in the future, then under those circumstances the case is moot.

De La Fuente also said in his brief that he wants to amend his complaint to challenge the residency requirement for presidential electors in the general election, but the state said that is an entirely new issue and Rocky should file a new lawsuit on that point.

Mimi Soltysik Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit over California Party Labels for Candidates who are Members of Unqualified Parties

Posted on by March 12, 2020
3

On February 27, Emidio “Mimi” Soltysik voluntarily dismissed his case that challenges the California law that denies a party label to candidates for Congress and partisan state office if they are not members of a qualified party. Sadly, Mimi has a serious health problem that threatens his life. He is a registered Socialist. He had filed the lawsuit in 2015. The U.S. District Court had ruled against him without even permitting a trial. But the Ninth Circuit had reinstated the case. Discovery had been delayed, though, because of Soltysik’s personal situation.

The case was dismissed without prejudice, which means that any other member of an unqualified party who runs for partisan office can challenge the law.