Colorado Bill that Injures Ballot Access Passes Another Committee

Posted on by April 19, 2019
6

On April 19, the Colorado House Appropriations Committee passed HB 19-1278. It had also passed the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on April 2. It now goes to the House.

It increases the number of signatures, for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties, for all office except president. The worst change is for statewide office, which goes from 1,000 signatures to 10,500, with the addition of a difficult congressional district distribution requirement.

More states have seen bills to make ballot access worse this year than at any time since 1971. Fortunately most of them have died, or appear unlikely to pass. The three that have already passed are in New York, Kentucky, and Arkansas. The latter two states made ballot access worse but have already been sued by the Libertarian Party over the 2019 changes.

Georgia Ballot Access Case Gets Closer to a Decision

Posted on by April 18, 2019
3

In 2017, the Georgia Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit against the Georgia law on how independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, get on the ballot for U.S. House. Cowan v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:17cv-4660.

After two years, discovery has finally been completed. Each side will submit briefs asking for summary judgment by May 15, 2019. The Georgia law is so difficult, no third party has managed to comply with the law since it was created in 1943. No independent has complied with it since 1964. The law requires a petition of 5% of the registered voters, which is now typically 20,000 signatures or so.

There is no other ballot access law in any state with a historical record similar to the Georgia U.S. House law. Every other state except Alabama has had minor party or independent candidates for U.S. House on the ballot in either 2018 or 2016 or both years. Alabama last had one in 2014.

New Jersey State Trial Court Enjoins Law Requiring One Man and One Woman for Political Party Committees

Posted on by April 18, 2019
2

In New Jersey, voters who are party members elect two members of political party committee members in each precinct. A 1946 law says that parties must elect one man and one woman. On April 16, that law was enjoined for Middlesex County. The case is Central Jersey Progressive Democrats v Flynn, Mer-L-732-19. The lawsuit had been filed April 11. Quick action was needed because these party elections are being held June 4, 2019.

One of the plaintiffs identifies as intersex, and therefore that person was not permitted to be a candidate for party committee.

Most counties in New Jersey ignore the 1946 law, but Middlesex County has always enforced it.

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.