This BBC story says Moscow, Russia, is barring 30 candidates from the ballot because they allegedly didn’t submit valid petitions. In response, a very large demonstration was held, and organizers of the protest say these demonstrations will continue if the candidates are not put on the ballot. Thanks to Nathan Hetzel for the link.
City and State has this in-depth analysis of fusion in New York state, and what the consequences will be if it is eliminated.
The Socialist Party will hold its national convention in Newark, New Jersey, on October 18-19, 2019. The party will decide whether or not to run a presidential candidate. The last time it didn’t run anyone for president was 1984. There is some sentiment that the party should not run its own nominee, and instead try to assist Howie Hawkins, who is seeking the Green Party presidential nomination. Hawkins is also a member of the Socialist Party.
The Boston Globe has this op-ed by former Governor and former U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee, on why he joined the Libertarian Party. He now lives in Wyoming but he is still better known in New England than in the remainder of the country. When he was in office, he was in Rhode Island.
On July 19, the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s presidential independent petition requirement. De La Fuente v Padilla, 17-56668. The decision is only ten pages and did not mention any of the precedents that suggest the California law is too difficult, except that it did mention the Georgia 2016 decision. However, it erroneously says that the Georgia precedent is different because Georgia had not permitted any minor parties to be on the ballot. This is not true; Georgia allowed the New Alliance Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party to be on the ballot for president. Here is the decision.
The decision does not mention any of the evidence that was in the record, showing that a requirement of almost 200,000 signatures is not needed to keep the ballot from being too crowded. That evidence showed that states that require over 5,000 signatures never have a crowded ballot, if “crowded ballot” is defined as an election with more than eight candidates. The decision does not mention that no one has used the procedure since 1992. The decision does not mention the U.S. Supreme Court’s admonition in Storer v Brown and Mandel v Bradley that procedures that are seldom used are probably unconstitutionally difficult.
The decision does not mention the fact that no candidate in California, except presidential independents, ever need more than 7,000 signatures. That is the requirement for candidates for other statewide office who choose not to pay the filing fee. The decision does not mention that the U.S. Supreme Court said in Anderson v Celebrezze that states should have easier access for president than for other office.
The decision is by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who has established a record of great hostility toward minor party and independent candidate voting rights. She has authored opinions upholding severe ballot access laws in Arizona and California, and also she agreed with a decision upholding the Arizona practice of printing the names of only the Democratic and Republican Parties on the voter registration forms even though there were other ballot-qualified parties. She is a Clinton appointee.
The decision is also signed by Judge A. Wallace Tashima and Judge John Clifford Wallace.
