Rocky De La Fuente’s Lawsuit on Presidential Tax Returns Transferred to Federal Court in Sacramento

Rocky De La Fuente’s federal lawsuit against the new California law on presidential candidate tax returns and primary ballot access has been transferred from the federal court in San Diego (the southern district) to the federal court in Sacramento (the eastern district). Therefore, all the five federal cases against the new law are assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England. The hearing is September 19. The case number for De La Fuente v Padilla is now 2:19cv-1659.

The state has asked permisison to file a single brief that will relate to all five cases. The state also wants permission to exceed the normal length for briefs of this type. It is difficult to imagine a single brief, because the cases differ in some ways. They include two candidates, President Donald Trump and De La Fuente, who are not situated identically. Also they include two cases that have no candidate-plaintiffs, just voter-plaintiffs. And they include a case filed by the Republican National Committee, which has issues of freedom of association that are not present in the other cases.

Illinois Files Brief in Case Concerning 5% Petition for U.S. House Independent Candidates

On August 28, Illinois filed a brief in Gill v Scholz, 19-1125. This is the case that challenges the Illinois law that requires independent candidates for U.S. House to submit a petition of 5% of the last vote cast. The state’s brief says that two independent candidates succeeded in recent years for U.S. House: one in 2018 and one in 2010. But the state’s brief does not say that no one challenged either petition. In Illinois in 2010, a candidate who submitted even one signatures was allowed to be on the ballot, if no one challenged. In 2018 the policy was somewhat different. A candidate who submitted 10% of the requirement and who was not challenged was automatically put on the ballot, making the 2018 petition, in effect, a one-half of 1% petition (if the candidate was lucky enough not to be challenged).

Therefore, the two examples the state cites do not support the concept that a 5% petition is reasonable.

Seventh Circuit Supports U.S. District Court Injunction Against Indiana Voter Registration Restriction

On August 27, the Seventh Circuit upheld a U.S. District Court injunction against a 2017 Indiana voter registration restriction. Common Cause Indiana v Lawson, 18-2491. Here is the decision.

The issue is a 2017 Indiana law that says if the state finds out that one of its registered voters is also registered in another state, then Indiana will immediately cancel the Indiana voter registration without contacting the voter. The decision says this policy violates the federal voter registration law. It also points out that although voting in two states in an election that is occurring on the same day in both states is illegal, merely being registered to vote in two states simultaneously is not illegal.

The state argues that the plaintiff Common Cause does not have standing, but the court said it does have standing.

Final Briefs Filed in Georgia U.S. House Ballot Access Case

On August 28, the reply briefs were filed from both sides in Cowen v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:17cv-4660. This is the case that challenges the Georgia law that requires a petition of 5% of the registered voters for the nominees of a party that didn’t poll as much as 20% of the vote in the last election for Governor or President. The Libertarian Party filed this case in 2017.

Here is the Libertarian Party brief.

Here is the state’s brief.

California Democratic Party Endorses Proportional Representation

On August 25, the California Democratic Party Executive Board endorsed Proportional Representation. The resolution says, in part, “Therefore be it resolved that the California Democratic Party supports the institution of proportional representation and multi-member districts to foster greater electoral representation, provide equity to minority discourses, and increase the diversity of our elected officials.”

Here is a link to all the resolutions adopted on August 25. The proportional representation resolution is Resolution 19-05.167. Scroll down. Thanks to Steve Chessin for this news.