U.S. District Court Says Colorado Secretary of State Had the Power to “Fire” Presidential Electors Who Voted for Someone who Didn’t Win Popular Vote

Posted on by April 11, 2018
9

On April 10, U.S. District Court Judge Wiley Daniel, a Clinton appointee, issued an opinion in Nemanich v Williams, 1:17cv-1937. He said that Colorado’s Secretary of State did not violate the U.S. Constitution when he replaced a Democratic presidential elector who was unwilling to vote for Hillary Clinton and who attempted to vote for John Kasich. The issue is whether presidential electors are free to vote for anyone in the electoral college, or whether they must vote for the person who got the most popular votes in their state.

Judge Daniel first said that none of the three presidential electors who filed the lawsuit have standing. Generally, when a judge finds that the plaintiffs lack standing, it is considered improper for the judge to then go on and imagine they do have standing, and make a ruling on the merits. But Judge Daniel proceeded to write that even if they did have standing, Colorado’s Secretary of State was correct. For the most part, he based his opinion on a 1952 case, Ray v Blair. The U.S. Supreme Court in that case upheld an Alabama law that let political parties keep presidential electors off their primary ballots if they wouldn’t take a pledge to support the party’s nominees in the electoral college, should they be elected.

Ray v Blair does not settle the current case, because Ray v Blair is a case about the rights of political parties to control who runs in their primaries. Back in 1952, the Alabama Democratic Party chose its presidential elector candidates in a primary, something no state does currently.

Parts of Ray v Blair suggest that presidential electors are free to vote for anyone they wish in December in the electoral college, but Judge Daniel said that is just dicta.

He also suggested that the Twelfth Amendment gives states authority to bind their presidential electors, but the Twelfth Amendment, which took effect in 1804, only tells presidential electors to vote separately for president and vice-president.

It is not surprising that Judge Daniel ruled as he did, because he showed the same attitude in December 2016 when he denied injunctive relief. It is presumed that the plaintiffs will appeal to the Tenth Circuit, which was more favorable to them in 2016. The Tenth Circuit had noted that in Ray v Blair, the U.S. Supreme Court had said that elector freedom “is implicit in the text of the Constitution.” Thanks to Tony Roza for this news.

Mexican Court Orders Independent Presidential Candidate to be Put on Ballot

Posted on by April 10, 2018
2

On April 10, Mexico’s top electoral court ruled 4-3 that independent presidential candidate Jaime “El Bronco” Rodriguez should be placed on the ballot. National election authorities had ruled that he didn’t have enough valid signatures. He showed that many of his disqualified signatures were actually valid, but he ran out of time. The basis for the decision is that he wasn’t given an opportunity to complete the re-validation process.

See this story. There are now five presidential candidates on the ballot.

The basis for the decision seems to resemble the decision in U.S. District Court in Georgia in 1980, when the court put John B. Anderson on the ballot because he had not been given enough time to prove that he really did have enough valid signatures. Anderson v Poythress.

Tennessee Libertarians Try Something New to Publicize Absurdity of Ballot Access Law

Posted on by April 9, 2018
16

Tennessee requires 33,844 signatures for a newly-qualifying party to get on the ballot, but only 25 signatures for anyone to run as an independent for any partisan office (except presidential independents need 275).

After years of trying and failing to persuade the legislature to lower the party petition, Tennessee Libertarians have decided to qualify 22 separate independent candidates for Governor this year, to publicize the absurdity of the law that is so harsh on minor parties and so easy for independent candidates. See this story.

No group has successfully completed the Tennessee petition for party status since 1968. Even Americans Elect tried and failed to qualify, in 2011.

South Carolina Primary Voters Who Choose a Republican Primary Ballot Can Weigh in on Whether South Carolina Should Have Partisan Registration

Posted on by April 9, 2018
3

South Carolina voter registration forms do not ask voters about party membership, and any voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot. In the June 2018 primary, voters who choose a Republican primary ballot will be asked to vote on whether the state should ask about party membership on voter registration forms. South Carolina lets parties put advisory questions on their own primary ballots. See this story.