California Trial Court Dismisses State of California’s Lawsuit to Void Huntington Beach Ordinance That Authorizes City Council to Require Voter ID

Posted on by November 18, 2024
6

On September 15, an Orange County Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the state against the city of Huntington Beach. The city’s voters passed a local ballot measure that authorizes the city council to pass an ordinance requiring voters to show photo ID to vote in city elections. The court indicated the lawsuit is premature, because the city council has not yet actually passed such a proposed rule.

The case is People of California v City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, 30-2024-1393606. Here is the ruling, which is very short. Thanks to Justin Levitt for the link. California’s Attorney General plans to appeal.

Nebraska State Court Hears Arguments on Why Medical Marijuana Statewide Inititive, Which Passed on November 5, Should be Ruled Invalid

Posted on by November 18, 2024
4

On November 14, a Nebraska state trial court in Lincoln held arguments on whether the medical marijuana initiative that passed on November 5 should be ruled invalid. The challengers to the initiative claim the initiative didn’t have enough valid signatures. See this story.

If the purpose of a petition requirement for initiatives is to show that a substantial number of voters want the initiative on the ballot, it seems redundant to invalidate it after the election, because the election returns themselves show that a majority of voters were in favor. The measure passed with 71%.

Fourth Circuit Agrees with Lower Court that Forcing a Candidate for Congress to Reveal Any Previous Felony Conviction is Not a Qualification

Posted on by November 18, 2024
4

On November 14, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the lower court that North Carolina’s law requiring candidates to reveal whether they have been convicted of a felony does not add to the qualifications to run for Congress. Sharma v Hirsch, 23-2164. Here is the decision.

The North Carolina declaration of candidacy to run in a primary asks if the candidate has been convicted of a felony, and, if so, to add some details about the conviction. When a candidate is running for Congress, though, the answers on the form have no impact on whether the candidate can get on the ballot. Even if the candidate has been convicted of a felony, the state will print his or her name on the ballot. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit concluded, because the requirement is not a barrier to ballot placement, there is no violation of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Article One bars the states from adding to the qualifications to run for Congress.

The decision also notes that the response to the question is not printed on any ballot, and it isn’t easy for a member of the public to even know what the candidate said on the declaration. The declaration is not available to be viewed on the internet.

The decision also acknowledges that a candidate can run for congress even if the candidate is not registered. The decision is by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (a Reagan appointee) and is also signed by Judges Julius N. Richardson and Allison Jones Rushing (Trump appointees).

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Shiva Ayyadurai’s New Jersey Presidential Qualifications Case

Posted on by November 18, 2024
2

On November 18, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Ayyadurai v Democratic State Committee of New Jersey, 24-342. This is the lawsuit filed by independent presidential candidate Shiva Ayyadurai. He had enough valid signatures in New Jersey, and New Jersey has many times in the past printed the names of presidential and vice-presidential candidates who don’t meet the constitutional qualifications. But in this case the New Jersey Democratic Party had challenged Ayyadurai, and the lower state courts had upheld the challenge.

It is not clear why the New Jersey Democratic Party took this action.

If the U.S. Supreme Court had taken up the case, that could have settled some questions not answered in the Trump v Anderson case from early in 2024. There were many briefs filed in Trump v Anderson on the issue of whether unqualified candidates for president should nevertheless be allowed on the ballot, on the theory that the true candidates are running for presidential elector. Trump v Anderson bypassed that question.