On April 11, Central Jersey Progressive Democrats filed a lawsuit in state court to overturn a state law that requires that county organizations of qualified parties have an equal number of male and female committee members. The lawsuit is filed in Superior Court in Middlesex County. The law has existed since 1947, but is not enforced in all counties. See this story.
On April 8, the Democratic Party filed this brief in Jacobson v Ertel, n.d., 4:18cv-262. This is the case over the Florida law that says the party that won the most recent gubernatorial election will always have the top line on the ballot for its nominees for all offices. The Democratic Party has not elected the Governor of Florida since 1994, and it hopes to win this case so that in future general elections, a random procedure will decide which candidates will be listed first.
The state government filed its brief on April 8 as well. It says that rotating the names of candidates in any particular election would be too complicated, but it says nothing about the alternate idea of having a random drawing each election to decide ballot order. The state also says that the Democratic Party has never before filed a lawsuit against any other state on this issue, and notes that in certain other states with the same type of law, the Democratic Party benefits. And the state claims that this law has existed since 1970 and the statute of limitations means that if the party didn’t like the law, it should have filed its lawsuit before 1975. And the state belittles the idea that ballot position makes any difference.
On April 11, the Ninth Circuit heard De La Fuente v Wyman, 18-35208, in Seattle. Here is a link to the video, which lasts 48 minutes. Washington has one of the nation’s oddest
ballot access procedures. The state requires 1,000 valid signatures. They can only be collected at locations that have been named in a newspaper notice. The candidate must place the notice at least ten days before he or she starts to petition.
The state allows petitioning at multiple locations, but each location must collect at least 100 valid signatures, or none of the signatures count. The state law refers to this process as an assemblage of electors, but that is a very misleading phrase, because what really happens is a petitioning process, not a meeting.
De La Fuente was kept off the ballot in November 2016 because by the time he started petitioning, it was less than ten days before the deadline, so there was no possibility of running a newspaper notice at least ten days before starting to petition. He challenged the requirement that the notice be placed at least ten days before the election. Although he failed to get injunctive relief, after the election the U.S. District Court declared the newspaper notice to be unconstitutional, because it didn’t serve any state interest. The state then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The three judges are William Fletcher, Consuelo Callahan, and Morgan Christen. The very last question in the hearing was by Judge Callahan. She asked if a single newspaper notice could say that the petitioners are going to be at a particular location, but on many particular dates in the future. The attorney for the state said that is permitted.
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.
