The Democratic National Committee has revised the rules for entry into the party’s presidential debates, according to this Politico story. The change will make it possible for Michael Bloomberg to participate. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
On January 31, U.S. District Court Judge Yvette Kane issued a temporary restraining order against the Pennsylvania law that won’t let out-of-state circulators work for Democratic presidential primary candidates. However, it only applies to the plaintiffs, a paid petitioning company called Accelerate 2020 and Joe Pool. Accelerate 2020 v Boockvar, m.d., 1:20cv-128. Here is the eight-page order.
The case had been filed January 24, 2020, and a conference with the judge had been held January 30. This decision was made possible by the victory earlier this month in a similar case filed in 2016, Benezet v Cortes.
Iowa State Senator Zach Nunn has introduced SF 2078, which would make it illegal for a political party to make a campaign contribution to anyone running in a non-partisan election.
An identical California law was held unconstitutional in U.S. District Court in 1996. California Democratic Party v Lungren, 919 F.Supp. 1397. Thanks to the Institute for Free Speech for the news about the Iowa bill.
On January 30, U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee, ruled that Texas has not been obeying the federal “Motor Voter” Law, and ordered the state to register the plaintiffs who had filed the lawsuit. The federal law says that when unregistered individuals interact with a state agency, they must be given the opportunity to register to vote, or to update their address. The order finds that Texas has not been doing this for people who update their address for drivers licenses on-line. Stringer v Cascos, w.d., 5:16cv-257. The case was filed in 2016.
On January 27, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit struck down two Arizona laws on voting procedures. The first law makes it a felony for most people to deliver a voted absentee ballot to an election-administration office. Only officials in their official capacity, family members, household members, or caregivers, can deliver such a ballot.
The other law invalidates provisional ballots which are cast at a precinct other than the voter’s home precinct. Democratic National Committee v Hobbs, 18-15845. The en banc decision was 6-4. It is based on the Fifteenth Amendment, which says “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged.” The decision is fact-filled and explains how the two invalid laws have a far greater impact on Native Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans, than on other voters.
Rick Hasen explains here that the decision shows that the Fifteenth Amendment has relevance to election law that is somewhat different than the Fourteenth Amendment.
