Alaska Initiative to End Ability of Parties to Nominate Candidates

An initiative is circulating in Alaska that would end the ability of political parties to nominate candidates, except in presidential elections. It would require all candidates to appear on the August primary ballot. Then, the top four candidates from the primary would be the only candidates who could appear on the general election ballot. The general election ballot would use ranked choice voting. Without ranked choice voting, the general election ballot in many cases would feature three candidates from one party, and only one from another party, which would be obviously unfair to the party with three candidates.

The initiative combines that idea with campaign finance restrictions. The description of the initiative, as shown on the petitions, starts with this sentence: “Prohibits the use of dark money by independent expenditure groups working to influence candidate elections in Alaska and require additional disclosures by these groups.”

This initiative seems to violate the rule that requires initiatives to be on single subjects. Furthermore, it is irrational for the proponents to retain the primary. If parties will no longer nominate candidates, and ranked choice voting will be used, one wonders why the primary should be retained.

The initiative makes it more difficult for parties to retain their place on the ballot. Current law lets them remain on with either a vote test or a registration test. The initiative eliminates the vote test.

Proponents need 28,501 signatures. If they complete the drive by early 2020, it would appear on the November 2020 ballot. If they take longer, it would appear on the 2022 ballot. Thanks to Rob Richie for this news.

Sixth Circuit Upholds Letting Local Election Administrators Remove an Initiative from the Ballot Based on its Content

On August 7, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in Schmitt v LaRose, 19-3196. This is the case that challenged the ability of county election boards to reject local initiatives, if the election board feels the initiative would be unconstitutional if it were passed by the voters. The U.S. District Court had ruled that letting non-judicial bodies reject an initiative based on its content is an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. But the Sixth Circuit wrote that the First Amendment’s restriction on prior restraint of speech does not apply to initiatives.

UPDATE: see this news story.

The case arose in Ohio, when a local initiative concerning marijuana decriminalization had enough valid signatures, but the county board of elections rejected it based on its content. Ohio law says that when a local initiative is removed based on its content, the proponents can request a writ of mandamus from a state court, and try to get back on the ballot. The initiative proponents had argued that the mandamus procedure is insufficient, but the Sixth Circuit felt it is an adequate remedy.

The opinion is by Judge Helen N. White, a Bush Jr. appointee (although originally Clinton had tried to appoint her). It is also signed by Judge Eric L. Clay, a Clinton appointee; and John K. Bush, a Trump appointee. Judge Bush wrote separately to take an even stronger position in favor of the county election board defendants.

California Supreme Court Asks Secretary of State to Respond to Republican Lawsuit on Presidential Primary Ballot Access

On August 7, the California Supreme Court asked the Secretary of State to respond to Patterson v Padilla, S257302. This is the lawsuit filed by the California Republican Party and its state chairwoman on August 6, challenging the new California law requiring presidential primary candidates to reveal their income tax returns.

The court wants the state’s response by noon August 14, and then the reply by August 16. Although there is no guarantee the Court will accept the case, it seems very likely, given this quick interest from the court. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

Briefs Filed in Both Sides in Georgia Ballot Access Case

On August 7, both sides filed briefs in the Georgia Libertarian ballot access case concerning U.S. House petition requirements for independent candidates and the nominees of parties that didn’t poll 20% of the vote for president or governor in the last election.

Here is the Secretary of State’s brief.

The Libertarian Party brief is here.

Georgia Secretary of State Files Objections to Most of the Recent Evidence in Georgia Ballot Access Case

The Georgia Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit against the Georgia requirements for getting on the ballot for U.S. House in 2017. It is still in U.S. District Court. On August 7, the state filed objections to practically all the witnesses who have filed declarations about petitioning in Georgia. See this document.