On April 11, the Illinois Senate passed SB 145 by 36-19. It says that presidential candidates cannot appear on either the presidential primary ballot, or the general election ballot, if they don’t submit copies of their tax returns for the preceding five years. However, it does not say that presidential electors cannot vote for someone in the electoral college who does not comply. Thanks to Political Wire for this news.
Earlier this year, the Kentucky legislature changed the deadline for the nominees of qualified convention parties to file a declaration of candidacy, from April 1, to mid-January of an election year. Kentucky elects its statewide state offices in November 2019, as well as some partisan county offices. The bill, HB 114, took effect immediately.
On April 11, the Kentucky Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit against the new law, Sweeney v Crigler, e.d., 2:19cv-46. The complaint challenges the need for the nominees of a qualified convention party to file such declarations of candidacy so early in the year. Aside from that, the complaint also argues that it violates due process for the bill to have taken effect immediately. The party’s nominating convention this year was in early March, so the nominees had no chance to file their declarations by mid-January. The party is running for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Auditor, Agriculture Commissioner, and some county offices.
The party is on the ballot but if it doesn’t win this lawsuit, it won’t be able to have any nominees on this year’s ballot. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman, a Carter appointee.
Constitutional ballot access cases filed by minor parties, and independent candidates, are now pending in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Utah, and Washington.
On April 10, California State Senator Mike McGuire amended his SB 27, the bill to require presidential primary candidates to submit copies of five years of income tax returns to the Secretary of State, or suffer being left off the primary ballot. The amendments give the Secretary of State less discretion, compared to the original version of the bill. The original bill let the Secretary of State decide what to redact, but the amended bill specifies the information that may be redacted. For example, the amended bill says the presidential candidate is free to redact the names of any dependents and their social security numbers. Here is a copy of the amended bill, that highlights the amendments.
The amended bill also removes the Secretary of State’s discretion about the deadline for submitting the income tax returns, and makes it 98 days before the primary, which would be in late November 2019, for the 2020 presidential primaries. Thanks to Ronald Paulinski for this news.
U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birotte has set a scheduling conference for May 31, Friday, at 10 a.m., in Soltysik v Padilla. This is the case that challenges California law on ballot labels. If a candidate for Congress or partisan state office is a member of a qualified party, the candidate’s party of registration is printed on the ballot next to his or her name. But if the candidate is a registered member of an unqualified party, no party label can appear. The plaintiff is a registered Socialist.
Californians to Defend the Open Primary, which had intervened in this case from the beginning on the side of the state, has now dropped out of the case. Californians to Defend the Open Primary includes the Independent Voter Project, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable.
On April 10, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed AB 1451 by 5-2, a party-line vote, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed. It bans paying petitioners on a per-signature basis. It also requires 10% of the needed signatures to be collected by volunteers. The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
