California Assembly Elections Committee Consultant Releases Nine-Page Analysis of Presidential Tax Returns Bill

Posted on by June 18, 2019
7

The California Assembly Elections Committee consultant has posted her nine-page analysis of SB 27, the bill to require presidential candidates to reveal their tax returns or be omitted from any presidential primary ballot. Use this link. Then choose the top line, which is “June 17, 2019 – Assembly Elections & Redistricting.”

The analysis says that it is unclear whether or not the bill violates the U.S. Constitution.

The bill also includes gubernatorial candidates.

The analysis does not mention the problem that the California Constitution appears to bar this bill, as to presidential candidates. The California Constitution, Article II, sec. 5(c), says, “The candidates on the (presidential primary) ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California.” This provision was interpreted in LaRouche v Eu in Sacramento Superior Court in 1992. That decision put Lyndon LaRouche on the Democratic presidential primary ballot, after the Secretary of State had excluded him. The decision says that whether a candidate is “recognized” depends on such things as whether he or she is on the primary ballot of other states, whether he or she has run before, whether he or she has a significant level of support, and whether he or she has qualified for primary season matching funds.

It is clear that if this bill is signed into law, and President Trump does not release his tax returns, he would still be eligible to be on the California presidential primary ballot, based on the criteria set forth in LaRouche v Eu. SB 27 would very likely be held to violate the California Constitution, if he were to sue. On the other hand, the bill does not bar him from filing as a write-in in the Republican primary, and it is plausible he would be a write-in candidate.

Vermont Omnibus Election Law Bill Signed

Posted on by June 17, 2019
Reply

On June 17, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed SB 107, the omnibus election law bill. Among other things, it lets voters sign for more than a single candidate for a particular office. This is true for both primary petitions and general election petitions. It also requires write-in candidates to file a declaration of write-in candidacy, in order for their votes to be counted. And it makes fusion more difficult, by preventing candidates from filing to be on the primary ballot of more than two parties. However, candidates can still be the nominee of two parties if they win one of the primaries by write-in votes.

New York State Senate Passes Bill Setting Date and Procedures for 2020 Presidential Primary

Posted on by June 17, 2019
1

On June 17, the New York State Senate unanimously passed S6374, which sets the date for the presidential primary, and also the procedures for how candidates get on the ballot. Democratic presidential candidates need 5,000 signatures. Candidates running in the primaries of other parties don’t need any signatures, if they are recognized candidates.

Arizona Moves Petition Deadline for Newly-Qualifying Parties from February to November of the Year Before Election

Posted on by June 17, 2019
3

The 2019 session of the Arizona legislature moved the petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties from February of an election year, to November of the year before an election. Ballot Access News had previously reported that the bill to do this, SB 1154, had been defeated. It had been defeated in the House, on May 2, 2019.

But, unknown to BAN until today, on May 14 the House reconsidered the bill and passed it. It was signed into law on May 22. The new law says the party petition is due 250 days before the primary. The bill also moves the primary from late August to early August. The 2020 primary will be on August 4. Calculating the date that is 250 days before the primary shows that the deadline will be November 28.

Petition deadlines for newly-qualifying parties that are too early are unconstitutional. Deadlines for new party petitions, or petitions for the nominees of unqualified parties, for office other than President, have been struck down or enjoined in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

However, in 2014, when the Green Party sued Arizona over its February petition deadline, the Ninth Circuit rejected the lawsuit because the party did not present any evidence of how the early deadline had injured its petition. If the Green Party brings a new lawsuit against the new deadline, it will need to show how the early deadline injures its petitioning effort. Generally such lawsuits show that it is difficult to raise enough money in an odd year to hire paid circulators, and it is also difficult to motivate volunteer petitioners in an odd year. Most people do not get excited about political activism until the election year itself. Thanks to Haryaksha Gregor Knauer for the news about the new law.

Green Party Sues City of Tucson, Arizona, Over Removal of its Qualified Party Status

Posted on by June 17, 2019
2

On June 12, the Green Party of Pima County, Arizona, filed a lawsuit in state Superior Court in Pima County, to regain its status as a qualified party within the city of Tucson. Tucson is the only city in Arizona with partisan elections for city offices, and is electing a Mayor in November 2019.

Arizona law says that when a previously unqualified party submits a petition, it is then entitled to be recognized for two elections. The Green Party submitted a petition to be recognized in Tucson in 2017, and was on the ballot. But now the city says that the party is not recognized for the 2019 city election.

The Green Party is not on the Arizona ballot for federal or state office at this time. Arizona is a state that lets a party that is not qualified statewide to still be qualified in just part of the state, if it petitions within that portion of the state.

The case has a hearing on July 1 at 11 a.m. in Tucson.