Democratic Party Activists Sue Minnesota Over Ballot Order

Posted on by November 27, 2019
6

On November 27, persons associated with the Democratic Party sued Minnesota over its law on the order of candidates on the general election in partisan races. That law, unique in the nation, says the nominees of the qualified parties should be listed first on the ballot, in reverse order of how many votes they received in the previous general election for all partisan office. Here is the Complaint, in Pavek v Simon, 0:19cv-3000.

Under the existing law, the nominees of the Legal Marijuana Now Party will be listed first on the November 2020 ballot, because it polled the fewest votes of the four ballot-qualified parties. Next will be the Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party; then the Republican Party; and finally the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Under their nominees will be the nominees of the unqualified parties, and any independent candidates. The case is assigned to U.S. District Magistrate David T. Schultz, a Trump appointee. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

Rocky De La Fuente Sues Minnesota Over Presidential Primary Ballot Access

Posted on by November 27, 2019
10

On November 26, Rocky De La Fuente sued Minnesota in federal court, over the law that gives the Republican Party exclusive control over which candidates may be listed on the party’s presidential primary ballot. De La Fuente v Simon, 0:19cv-2995. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge David Doty, a Reagan appointee. Here is the Complaint.

The case depends on the theory that the presidential primary ballot access law violates the U.S. Constitution, because it sets up a ballot access barrier that is not designed to help election administration. De La Fuente’s pending case in Georgia is similar.

If New York Proposal to Change Definition of Political Party Had Been in Effect in 2018, Twelve Legislative Districts that Actually Offered a Choice of Candidates Would Have Been One-Candidate Elections

Posted on by November 27, 2019
3

If the proposal of the New York Campaign Finance Commission had been in effect in 2018, the only ballot-qualified parties would have been Democratic, Republican, and Conservative.

In that case, there are twelve legislative elections from 2018 that actually had a choice of candidates, but would have been one-candidate elections with the proposal in place. For the State Senate, they would have been these districts: 13, 16, 20, and 62. For Assembly, they would have been: districts 39, 40, 61, 62, 63, 76, 114, and 139.

Joe Mathews Column Says California Democratic Leaders Ought to Suggest a State Constitutional Amendment to Allow Law on Candidate Tax Returns

Posted on by November 27, 2019
7

Joe Mathews, a commentator on California politics, here writes that if California Democratic legislators and Governor Gavin Newsom really believe in the idea that candidates should be kept off ballots if they don’t reveal their income taxes, they ought to put a proposed state constitutional amendment on the ballot. If such an amendment passed the legislature and then the electorate also voted for it, then there would no longer be a state constitutional barrier to the law that the legislature passed this year, requiring presidential primary candidates to reveal their tax returns.

Of course, even if all that happened, there is still no guarantee that such a tax returns-ballot law would be constitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

Jill Stein Asks Federal Court to Bar Philadelphia ES&S Vote-Counting Machines

Posted on by November 27, 2019
2

On November 26, Jill Stein, the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate, asked a U.S. District Court in Philadelphia to re-open her settlement with the state over vote-counting machines. A year ago she and the state had settled her lawsuit, and the state promised to use only vote-counting machines with a paper trail. Stein v Boockvar, e.d., 2:16cv-6287.

Despite the settlement, Philadelphia County still plans to use ES&S machines, which do not actually create a paper trail. The state says the ES&S system is secure. Here is Stein’s brief. The judge has asked the state to respond.