On October 1, the plaintiffs in Gill v Scholz, c.d., 3:16cv-3221, filed this 14-page reply brief. This is the case that challenges Illinois ballot access for independent candidates for U.S. House. There will be one more brief, from the state. The case was filed in 2016 by independent candidate David Gill, against the 5% (of the last vote cast) petition requirement, and the restriction that the petition must be completed in 90 days.
On October 2, the California Secretary of State released a new registration tally, the first since May 21, 2018. The percentages are: Democratic 43.75%; Republican 24.50%; American Independent 2.59%; Libertarian .741%; Green .46%; Peace & Freedom .38%; independent and miscellaneous 27.33%; unknown .25%.
At the May 2018 tally, the percentages were: Democratic 44.36%; Republican 25.07%; American Independent 2.65%; Libertarian .745%; Green .48%; Peace & Freedom .39%; independent and miscellaneous 26.11%; unknown .20%.
Among the unqualified parties, the Constitution Party declined from 315 to 296. A new unqualified party, the California National Party, has 721 registrants.
On Sunday, September 30, U.S. District Court Judge Alison J. Nathan, an Obama appointee, refused to dismiss the lawsuit Common Cause New York v Brehm, s.d., 1:17cv-06770. The lawsuit had been filed in 2017, alleging that New York polling place officials frequently tell inactive votes who arrive at the polling place that they are not registered. Both federal law and New York law provide that when an inactive voter arrives at the polling place, he or she must be told about the chance to vote using an “affidavit ballot.” This term seems to mean the same thing as provisional ballot in other states. Here is the 30-page opinion. See the last section of the opinion, starting on page 25. The earlier part of the decision says the state’s laws are not in conflict with federal law, so the only part of the case remaining is the as-applied portion.
One reason for this problem is that in New York, the names of inactive voters do not appear on the poll book, the list of registered votes inside the precinct. The names do appear on the state’s computerized list of registered voters, but that is not much help at the polling place, because the state computerized list isn’t on hand in the precinct polling place.
The decision gives the plaintiffs a chance to prove that their allegations are correct, and keeps the case alive. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
In 2016, Missouri voters passed a ballot measure amending the State Constitution to require voter ID at the polls. The new law is being attacked in a state court lawsuit, which says that the original constitutional language about the right to vote is in conflict with the new amendment. Oral argument was held on October 1. See this story. The judge says he will have a ruling by next week.
On October 1, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear George v Hargett, 18-76. This is the case over the meaning of the Tennessee Constitution and its provision on how many votes a proposed ballot measure needs to pass. The Tennessee Constitution says, “If the people shall approve and ratify such amendment by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for Governor, voting in their favor, such amendment shall become a part of the Constitution.”
A U.S. District Court had interpreted the Constitution to mean that an amendment doesn’t pass unless a majority of the particular voters who voted for Governor voted “yes.” But the Sixth Circuit had reversed, and ruled it means just that the measure needs a number of “yes” votes that equals at least 50% of the total vote cast for Governor.
If the U.S. District Court opinion had prevailed, then every ballot would need to be examined, to compare how a particular voter voted for Governor and then how that same voter voted on the amendment.
