In June, the Pennsylvania Senate passed SB 300, which lets independent voters choose a partisan primary ballot. But the House has not yet acted on the bill. This story says that the legislature will adjourn in a few weeks. It lists several pending election law bills that seem unlikely to pass, including that one.
This extensive National Public Radio story explains that New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner and his office have refused to explain a law passed in 2019 that seems to make it illegal for anyone to register to vote in New Hampshire if he or she has an out-of-state drivers license.
The Green Party collected enough valid signatures to place a nominee on the ballot for Mayor of New London, Connecticut, in the upcoming November 2019 election. But the candidate, Frida Berrigan, won’t be on the ballot (without a lawsuit) because the party’s letter to the Secretary of State, certifying that she is the Green Party nominee, was never received by the Secretary of State. See this story.
As already noted, on September 19, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England stated from the bench that he will enjoin the new California tax returns-ballot bill. Although he hasn’t released his written opinion yet, from his remarks, he seems likely to use statutory preemption, rather than the U.S. Constitution, as the basis for his opinion.
5 US Code Appendix 107(b), part of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, says, “The provisions of this title requiring the reporting of information shall supersede any general requirement under any other provisions of law or regulation with respect to the reporting of information required for purposes of preventing conflicts of interest or apparent conflicts of interest.”
That federal law applies to all federal employees, including elected ones like the President. Because the President is already required to comply with the disclosures included in the act, and because the federal law expressly says that its provisions supersede any other laws on disclosure, therefore California’s law is preempted.
Courts are supposed to decide cases without resorting to a judgment of constitutionality or unconstitutionality, if they can do so. So it seems Judge England will use the preemption argument to avoid having to issue an opinion about constitutionality. That reasoning would also apply to the laws of any other states, if any other states pass such laws. The bills in other states (unlike California) always applied to the general election ballot. Thanks to Scott Lay for this news. He observed the September 19 oral argument in Sacramento.
At the oral argument on September 19 in Trump v Padilla, California Deputy Attorney General Peter H. Chang told the court, “Individuals don’t have the right to run for office.” However, the Copenhagen Meeting Document, an international human rights declaration signed by the United States, says “The participating states will respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organizations.” See 7.5 of the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a document that the U.S. signed in June 1990.
That document is part of the Helsinki Accords.
See this article from Politico, which quotes Chang.
