Florida Supreme Court Rules that Counties Must Use Partisan Elections for Executive Officers

Posted on by April 18, 2019
3

On April 18, the Florida Supreme Court issued a new opinion in Orange County, Florida v Singh, SC18-79. It reverses the same court’s January 4, 2019 opinion in the same case. The issue is whether counties may choose to have non-partisan elections for their own executive officers. The new opinion says state election law requires these elections to be partisan.

The voters of Orange County had passed a ballot measure to have non-partisan elections for Clerk of Circuit Court, Comptroller, Property Appraiser, Sheriff, Supervisor of Elections, and Tax Collector, but that measure is now ruled invalid.

Orange County is one of Florida’s most populous counties, and includes Orlando. Democrats generally outpoll Republicans in Orange County. In 2016, the vote for president in Orange County was: Hillary Clinton 329,894; Donald Trump 195,216. Democrats in Orange County favor partisan elections and Democratic officials filed this lawsuit. The lower courts had ruled against non-partisan elections. The first opinion of the State Supreme Court had ruled in favor of non-partisan elections. After it came out, the losing side asked for clarification, and in a surprise, the court changed its mind.

Lawsuit Filed Against New South Dakota Law that Prohibits Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Measure Campaigns

Posted on by April 18, 2019
1

In 2018, the South Dakota voters passed an initiative that bans out-of-state individuals and organizations from contributing any money to support or oppose a South Dakota ballot measure. On April 17, some organizations filed a federal lawsuit against that law. South Dakota Newspaper Association v Barnett, 3:19cv-3010.

The case is assigned to Judge Roberto A. Lange, an Obama appointee. The plaintiffs are represented by Marty Jackley, who was formerly Attorney General of South Dakota. Thanks to the Institute for Free Speech for the link.

Presidential Debates Case Loses

Posted on by April 18, 2019
4

On March 31, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan dissmissed the lawsuit Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission. Here is the 42-page opinion. The case had been filed in 2015. The opinion says that the Federal Election Commission was not “arbitrary or capricious” when it determined that the Commission on Presidential Debates is not violating federal campaign finance law.

Here is an April 1 press release from the FEC.

Iowa Senate Passes Bill Making Ballot Access More Difficult

Posted on by April 18, 2019
3

On April 17, the Iowa Senate passed HF 692, which makes ballot access for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, more difficult.

It increases statewide petitions from 1,500 signatures to 4,000 signatures, and adds an unconstitutional county distribution requirement of 200 signatures from each of ten counties.

It increases U.S. House petitions from 375 signatures to 2,000, and says there must be 77 signatures from each of half the counties in the district. No other state has ever had a county distribution requirement for U.S. House petitions, and that would be unconstitutional as well.

It increases the petition for State Senate petitions from 100 signatures to 200, and increases State House petitions from 50 to 100.

It moves the petition deadline for non-presidential petitions from mid-August to early June. It says that the names of parties can be abbreviated on the ballot, as long as the instructions part of the ballot explains the abbreviations. It makes it easier to invalidate signatures.

The bill passed 31-18. One Republican Senator, Dennis Guth, did not vote; otherwise all the Republicans voted “yes” and all the Democrats voted “no.” Senator Brad Zaun, a Republican, had promised to vote “no” but he did vote “yes”, which means the Republican leadership in the Senate probably put a great deal of pressure on every Republican to support the bill. The bill now goes to the House. When it had passed the House the first time, it did not have the ballot access amendments in the bill. The bill is an omnibus election law bill. Thanks to Nathan Hetzel for this news.

Lawsuit Against Exclusion of Independent Voters from North Carolina Election Boards gets a New Start

Posted on by April 17, 2019
2

On April 15, Michael Crowell, an independent voter in North Carolina and an attorney, filed a new complaint in his lawsuit Crowell v Cooper, m.d., 1:17cv-515. The case was filed two years ago and has never had a decision. It challenges North Carolina law for mandating that only members of the two largest parties can serve on the State Board of Elections, or on a county board.

Here is the new complaint. The case has been stalled because the composition of the state board has been changing for the last few years. The legislature has been tinkering with the composition, and state courts have been either invalidating or validating some of those changes. The U.S. District Court handling Crowell’s case had asked him to hold the case until the changes stopped. Now it is ready to move ahead. The complaint has a good account of all the changes that have gone on in the last two years.