Seventeen Law Professors File Amicus in Favor of Delaware Law Requiring All State Judges to be Democrats or Republicans

Posted on by October 7, 2019
6

A case is currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court on the Delaware law that says all state court judges (on most of the state courts) must be members of a party that has voter registration of at least 5%. Therefore, an independent can never become a state court judge. The Third Circuit had invalidated the policy, and Delaware is trying to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal. Carney v Adams, 19-309.

On October 2, seventeen law professors filed this amicus in favor of the Delaware law. Their names are in the Appendix. The state will file its own brief later on October 7.

Delaware does not elect any judges; they are all appointed.

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Election Law Cases from Connecticut or Washington

Posted on by October 7, 2019
1

On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a Connecticut case, Feehan v Marcone, 18-1470. The state courts had refused to order a new legislative election following the November 2018 regular election in one particular district. The margin between the Republican and the Democrat was extremely close, and then it became known that a number of voters larger than the margin had accidentally been given ballots that omitted that race. The state courts said there was no evidence that if those voters had been allowed to vote, the outcome would have been different. Of course it would have been impossible for there to be any such evidence. It is the Republican nominee who had brought this lawsuit.

Also on October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a Washington state case, Save Tacoma Water v Port of Tacoma, 18-1518. The issue was whether a nonjudicial government official has the power to invalidate an initiative petition (even though it has enough valid signatures) if he or she thinks the initiative, if passed, would be unconstitutional or illegal.

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Alabama Ballot Access Case

Posted on by October 7, 2019
1

On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Hall v Merrill, 18-1362. This is the case that challenged Alabama’s petition requirement for independent candidates in special U.S. House elections.

The Supreme Court thus carries on its habit of denying all ballot access cases filed by minor parties or independent candidates. The Court hasn’t taken such a case since 1991. Although it took Burdick v Takushi in early 1992, that was a case filed by a Democratic voter who lived in a Hawaii legislative district with no Democrat on the ballot, and the plaintiff-voter wanted to write-in a Democrat.

California Media Fails to Inform Readers of State’s Failure to Appeal President Tax Returns-Ballot Decision

Posted on by October 6, 2019
4

Here is the California Secretary of State’s calendar for various filing deadlines for the March 2020 presidential primary. The calendar says the Secretary of State will announce by December 6 which presidential candidates are on various presidential primary ballots.

Therefore, there is very little time left for appellate courts to decide the validity of the California tax returns-ballot law. Notwithstanding the time crunch, though, the state has still not filed a notice of appeal in Trump v Padilla, the case over whether presidential primary candidates must show their tax returns. The U.S. District Court enjoined the law. The Secretary of State said he would appeal, but so far he has not, which seems to indicate that he won’t appeal. But no general news source has mentioned his failure to appeal, so far.