On August 28, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg issued an order in Curling v Kemp, n.d., 1:17cv-2989. This is the lawsuit over whether Georgia may continue to use vote-counting machines that do not leave an audit trail. The 3-page order clears away all procedural objections to the lawsuit, and sets another oral argument for Monday, September 17, on the question of whether she should issue an injunction against the existing machines.
A local initiative has qualified for the ballot in Fargo, North Dakota. It would switch elections for city office to Approval Voting. See this story. Thanks to Shawn Griffiths for this news.
On August 29, a few hours after the oral argument, the West Virginia Supreme Court issued a two-page order, denying the Constitution Party’s lawsuit to be on the ballot for U.S. Senate. Its nominee is Don Blankenship, who had earlier this year lost the Republican primary for the same office. The Court says it will explain its reasoning later. Thanks to Phil Hudok for this news.
On August 29, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in Hall v Merrill, 16-16766. This is the case in which the U.S. District Court had ruled that it is unconstitutional for Alabama to require the signatures of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote in special congressional elections, because in special congressional elections, there isn’t much time to get so many signatures. The decision is 21 pages. The dissent is 29 pages.
The majority says the U.S. District court victory is therefore “vacated.” But it is reported, and will still stand as a useful precedent because it is so detailed and convincing. 212 F.Supp. 3d 1148 (m.d., 2016).
The majority said that the case is moot, because the election was in the past when the U.S. District Court struck down the law. However, in 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Moore v Ogilvie that ballot access constitutional cases are not moot just because the election is over. To get around this problem, the Eleventh Circuit made two errors: (1) it said that it believes the U.S. Supreme Court Moore decision only applies if the candidate expects to run in a future election; (2) it said that there is no reason to think the plaintiff will run in a future special election because special elections in Alabama are rare.
Neither the majority nor the minority mentioned that in 1973, in Richardson v Ramirez, the U.S. Supreme Court commented on Moore v Ogilvie and said on page 35, “Unlike Moore v Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), in which the particular candidacy was not apt to be revived in a future election…”. Therefore, this shows the U.S. Supreme Court did not expect the Moore plaintiffs to run in a future election, and yet the U.S. Supreme Court still said Moore v Ogilvie wasn’t moot. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit has no idea whether the plaintiff will run again in a future U.S. House election. It is somewhat likely that Hall will ask for a rehearing to point out the error.
Clare Schexnyder, a former CNN news producer who lives in Atlanta, has formed the Public Service Party. The goal is to recruit write-in candidates for the state legislature this year, in districts in which only one candidate is on the general election ballot.
The group has been injured by the extremely early deadline for write-in candidates to file in Florida, which is in July of the election year. But the group did recruit one write-in candidate to file in Florida, and has six so far in Georgia. See this story. Thanks to Ken Bush for the link.
