The Progressive Magazine has this story about the many instances when local initiatives are being kept off ballots because of their content. The old rule for initiatives all across the nation is that if there is a constitutional infirmity with the idea proposed by the initiative, courts won’t consider that until after the initiative has passed, if it does pass. But now the trend is shifting, according to the story, to keeping them off the ballot before any popular vote is held.
On April 23, some U.S. citizens who formerly lived in Illinois, and who moved to Guam, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Segovia v U.S, 17-1463. Here is the cert petition.
Illinois law would have permitted them to continue voting by absentee ballot if they had moved to any foreign country, or to American Samoa. But they can’t vote any longer because they now live in one of the three above-listed U.S. territories.
The Seventh Circuit had ruled that they lack standing to sue.
On April 23, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp appointed an 18-person committee to study what kind of vote-counting machines Georgia ought to obtain. He included one representative from the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties. See this story. It is somewhat ironic that Kemp treated the Libertarian Party well relative to this matter, and yet is in court fighting to prevent the Libertarian Party from running candidates for U.S. House of Representatives.
On April 23, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously removed Congressman Doug Lamborn from the Republican primary ballot. He has been in Congress since the 2006 election and he intends to run for re-election. He was removed because two of his petition circulators were not residents of Colorado when they worked on his petition. The petition requires 1,000 signatures of registered Republicans.
The case is Kuhn v Williams, 2018 CO 30. The decision is 28 pages.
In 2008, the Tenth Circuit ruled in an Oklahoma case that bans on out-of-state circulators are unconstitutional. Yes on Term Limits v Savage, 550 F.3d 1024 (2008). Colorado is in the Tenth Circuit. The Colorado Supreme Court did not mention the Yes on Term Limits decision, and said it is not expressing any opinion on whether the Colorado residency requirement for circulators is constitutional or not.
Presumably Congressman Lamborn will now bring a constitutional challenge. The Colorado primaries are on June 26, so any such constitutional case will need to move very fast. There are other Republicans on the primary ballot for the 5th district. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the news.
On April 23, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear French v Jones, 17-1255. The issue was the Montana law that made it illegal for a judicial candidate to tell anyone that he or she had been endorsed by a political party. The plaintiff had lost in the courts below, and was running for Justice of the Peace. The Republican Party had endorsed him.
