Procedural Win in New Jersey Lawsuit Over Out-of-State Petitioners

On April 19, the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Wilmoth v Secretary of State of New Jersey, 17-1925. The issue is New Jersey’s law that requires petitioners to be registered voters in New Jersey. The two plaintiffs, Shawn Wilmoth and Trenton Pool, had brought the lawsuit in 2016. They each wanted to circulate presidential primary petitions in New Jersey, but they are not New Jersey residents.

The U.S. District Court had upheld the law on March 24, 2017, and didn’t even bother to write an opinion. The U.S. District Court Judge was Peter Sheridan, a Bush Jr. appointee.

The Third Circuit sent the case back for evidence-gathering. However the Third Circuit also said that the U.S. District Court must apply strict scrutiny. This means that the law is invalid unless New Jersey can prove that it has a compelling need to bar out-of-staters. The Third Circuit wrote, “The complaint in this action presents a plausible claim that the New Jersey law infringes out-of-state circulators’ First Amendment rights.”

So far in this case, New Jersey’s only argument in defense of its law is that it is needed to protect the associational rights of political parties. This argument seems very weak, because Wilmoth, who wanted to work for a Democratic presidential candidate, alleged that he is a Democrat. Similarly, Pool, who wanted to work for a Republican presidential candidate, alleged that he is a Republican.

The Third Circuit decision is by Judge Thomas Valaskie, an Obama appointee. It is signed by Judge Thomas Hardiman, a Bush Jr. appointee, and Patty Shwartz, an Obama appointee.

Restrictive Bills in Minnesota Legislature Unlikely to Pass

The Minnesota legislature ends its 2018 session in a month. The bills to prevent local jurisdictions from using ranked-choice voting for their own elections seem unlikely to pass. SF 3325 had passed the Senate Government Finance & Elections Committee on March 14, but has made no further headway and is now in another Senate Committee. HF 3690, the identical bill in the House, never made any progress.

The bill to move the primary from August to June passed the House Government Operations & Elections Committee on March 1, but it hasn’t made any progress since then either. It would have the indirect effect of moving the petition deadline for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties from June to April. Also it would have moved the deadline for the new party petition from May to March.

Darcy Richardson Submits Evidence in Georgia Ballot Access Case About Why the 5% Petition was Created in 1943

The Libertarian Party of Georgia has a lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court against the petition requirement for minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House. On April 20, the party was required to notify the state of the substance of the testimony that will be submitted. One of the party’s witnesses, Darcy Richardson, submitted this 7-page summary of evidence that shows the 5% petition was passed in 1943 in order to block the Communist Party from ever again getting on the Georgia ballot.

North Carolina Ballot Access Case Begins to Move

Although the North Carolina legislature in 2017 made some huge improvements to ballot access for newly-qualifying parties, the ballot access laws relating to independent candidate are still faulty. Last year, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against some of those laws. Leifert v Strach, m.d., 1:17cv-147.

On April 20, a status conference was held. By April 27, both sides must jointly file a report setting out which issues in the case still need to be adjudicated.

The most glaring faults in the North Carolina law for independent candidates are: (1) the petition deadline for independent candidates, including presidential independent candidates, was moved from June to April early in 2017; (2) the number of signatures for a statewide independent is far in excess of the number needed for a new party.

Precedents from North Carolina federal court decisions already make it clear that both characteristics are unconstitutional. In DeLaney v Bartlett, in 2004, a U.S. District Court said that North Carolina could not require more signatures for a statewide independent than for an entire new party. And in Greaves v North Carolina State Board of Elections, in 1980, a U.S. District Court said that April is too early for independent candidate petition deadlines.