Judge Curtis Karnow, who Imposed Severe Treatment to Opponents of California Top-Two Details in 2012, Runs for Re-Election

Posted on by April 8, 2018
11

On August 1, 2012, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow ruled that I and five fellow co-plaintiffs must pay $247,279 in attorneys fees to the supporters of the California top-two system. Judge Karnow’s term is up and he is running for re-election at the June 5, 2018 primary. His opponent is Maria Evangelista, a San Francisco Public Defender.

The Bay Area Reporter, San Francisco’s leading gay newspaper, has this letter to the editor in its April 4 print and electronic editions, written by me, describing how Judge Karnow behaved in 2012. Scroll down to see my letter; the link has two entirely separate letters and mine is underneath.

After Judge Karnow ruled, we six voter-plaintiffs appealed to the State Court of Appeals. The law firm which opposed us offered to drop the amount to $100,000 if we dropped our appeal. We did so, and one of the other six plaintiffs (who does not wish to be named) very generously paid the $100,000.

Arizona Libertarian Party Files Final Brief in Ninth Circuit in Ballot Access Case

Posted on by April 7, 2018
4

On April 6, the Arizona Libertarian Party filed this reply brief in its ballot access case, Libertarian Party of Arizona v Reagan, 17-16491. The issue is the large number of signatures needed for a member of the Libertarian Party to get on the party’s primary ballot. The U.S. District Court had upheld the law, which kept all Libertarians off the primary ballot in 2016 except just one candidate for county office.

The new restrictive law, passed in 2015, does not apply to the Green Party, which had a good number of candidates on in Arizona in 2016.

Arkansas Asks Eighth Circuit to Block Independent Candidate from Running in 2018, Even Though Earlier He Won Case Against Petition Deadline

Posted on by April 7, 2018
1

On April 6, Arkansas asked the Eighth Circuit to block independent candidate Mark Moore from getting on the ballot as an independent candidate this year, on the grounds that he didn’t file candidacy paperwork by the March 1 deadline. Last year Moore won a lawsuit against that deadline. The state now says the decision only covers the date the petitions are due, not the date for the other candidacy paperwork. Here is the state’s brief. Moore v Martin, 18-1382.

Institute for Free Speech Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court in Montana Case on Whether Judicial Candidates May Reveal that a Party Endorsed

Posted on by April 6, 2018
1

On April 6, the Institute for Free Speech filed this 20-page amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in French v Jones, 17-1255. The issue is a Montana law that makes it illegal for a candidate for judicial office to reveal that a political party has endorsed him or her. The plaintiff had been a candidate for Justice of the Peace, and he was not permitted to say that the local Republican Party had endorsed him.

The amicus is by well-known law professor Eugene Volokh, an expert on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court will consider whether to hear this case at its April 20 conference.