Some Tennessee Voters Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Appeal on How Many Votes are Needed to Pass a Constitutional Amendment

Posted on by July 23, 2018
2

The Tennessee Constitution says, “If the people shall approve and ratify such amendment (to the Tennessee Constitution) 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.”

In 2014, an amendment concerning abortion was on the ballot, placed there by the legislature. It received 729,163 yes votes and 657,192 no votes. The state government declared that it had passed. The number of votes for Governor was 1,353,728; half of that number is 676,864.

Some opponents filed a federal lawsuit, saying the measure did not pass because the state did not show that a majority of people who actually voted for Governor had voted for the amendment. In order to show this, each ballot would have needed to be re-counted, to disregard votes on the amendment from people who abstained from voting for Governor. In other words, these voters take the meaning of the Tennessee Constitution to refer to particular voters. These voters won in U.S. District Court, but in January 2018, the Sixth Circuit reversed and said the measure passed.

Here is the cert petition. A great deal of the petition focuses on the procedural issue of whether it was wrong for the state officials to have filed their own lawsuit in state court, to get a favorable ruling on their side, instead of letting the federal court handle the case. The case is George v Haslam, 18-76 (although in the lower courts it was called George v Hargett).

Twenty Ohio Libertarians Make Use of New Procedure to Run for Partisan Office

Posted on by July 23, 2018
13

The Libertarian Party of Ohio is the first party to use the ballot access procedures for newly-qualifying parties that the legislature passed in 2013. The party had first met the July 3, 2018 deadline for the party petition. That petition required 54,965 valid signatures, and was found to be valid.

Then, the law said by July 19, any candidate who wanted a Libertarian nomination was required to submit a petition of 50 signatures for statewide office, or five signatures for other office. Twenty Libertarians submitted such petitions. In no instance did more than a single Libertarian for any particular office submit a candidate petition, so all of them are now deemed nominated and will appear on the November ballot. If two Libertarians had submitted a candidate petition for the same office, then the law permitted the state party officers to choose the actual nominee, and the other person would not appear on the ballot.

The offices being sought are U.S. Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Auditor, Secretary of State, four US House seats (districts 5, 10, 14, and 15), one State Senate seat, seven State House seats, and three partisan county offices.

The Green Party is also on the ballot, but it is not a newly-qualifying party, so it nominated this year by primary in May.

One of the paradoxes of the 2013 law is that newly-qualifying parties can choose candidates who emerge as late as July. Yet the independent candidate petition law requires that all non-presidential independents must submit petitions by the day before the May primary (the primary is in May in midterm years and March in presidential years). In 2005 the Sixth Circuit had upheld the independent candidate deadline on the grounds that it wouldn’t be fair if independents could decide to run for office later than the date parties nominated candidates. That decision was Lawrence v Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368. It now appears to be obsolete.

Independent Candidate Files Brief in Illinois Case Against 5% of the Last Vote Cast Petition Requirement for U.S. House

Posted on by July 22, 2018
1

On July 20, the plaintiff filed this brief in U.S. District Court, asking for summary judgement, in Gill v Scholz, c.d., 3:16cv-3221. This is the case that challenges the Illinois law that requires independent candidates for U.S. House to file signatures equal to 5% of the last vote cast.

This case was filed in 2016 and is still in U.S. District Court. If both sides ask for summary judgment, but the judge denies both sides, then there will be a trial.

North Dakota Supreme Court Asks for a Response from Secretary of State in Libertarian Recount Case

Posted on by July 22, 2018
13

The North Dakota Supreme Court recently asked the Secretary of State to respond to the Libertarian Party appeal concerning a recount of the June 12 Libertarian primary vote for Secretary of State. Riemers v Jeager, 2018-274. Roland Riemers was the only candidate on the Libertarian primary ballot for Secretary of State. Even though he was unopposed, the law says parties can’t nominate for statewide office unless the candidate gets at least 300 votes. The official vote said he only got 247 votes. Riemers asked for a recount, but the Secretary of State denied that request.

The law, 16.1-16-01, says “A recount must be conducted when any individual failed to be nominated in a primary election by 1% or less of the highest vote cast for a candidate for the office sought.” The Republican who was on the Republican primary ballot received 54,563 votes, and 1% of that number is 546. North Dakota primary ballots for all parties are printed on the same sheet of paper. A voter is told to choose one party column and only cast votes for candidates in that one party column.

Second Circuit Won’t Enjoin New York Law Letting Individuals Give More Money to a Qualified Party than an Unqualified Party

Posted on by July 21, 2018
6

On July 20, the Second Circuit refused to enjoin a New York campaign finance law that lets individuals give more donations to a qualified party than an unqualified party. Upstate Jobs Party v Kosinski, 18-1586. The three judges were Reena Raggi, Peter W. Hall, and Debra Ann Livingston, all Bush Jr. appointees.

The six-page order makes it clear that the panel thinks the lawsuit has merit, and that there are problems with the New York law. But they said there would be no useful purpose in an injunction, partly because the Upstate Jobs Party doesn’t have any candidates this year for statewide office.