Demos and the ACLU here describe all eighteen of the amici curiae briefs submitted in opposition to the state of Ohio, in the U.S. Supreme Court voter purge case, Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute, 16-980. The oral argument date hasn’t been set yet.
The list includes both the national Libertarian Party, and also the Ohio Libertarian Party.
CNN Polls has been asking respondents since 1992 whether they have a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward each of the two major parties. The latest poll shows that only 29% approve of the Republican Party and only 41% approve of the Democratic Party. See this story. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
The Republican Party is holding its state convention in Anaheim, October 20-22. According to this Los Angeles Times story, the party will decide whether to endorse the proposed initiative to repeal the top-two system. The party will also vote on whether to begin making endorsements prior to primaries, so as to increase the chances that a Republican can qualify for the November ballot.
On September 22, the Seventh Circuit issued a 12-page opinion in Libertarian Party of Illinois v Scholz, 16-1667. The opinion says the U.S. District Court was correct when it invalidated the Illinois “full-slate” ballot access restriction. The law, which has existed since 1931, says a newly-qualifying party must run a full slate of candidates or it can’t run any. The law has made life miserable for minor parties in Illinois for 86 years, and there have been many attempts to have it declared unconstitutional in the past, but they had all failed. The law did not apply to qualified parties.
This current case took years to reach this point. It was filed in 2012. The attorney who filed the case, Gary Sinawski, had died in the meantime, and the party had had to find a new attorney to carry on the case, David Schoen. Both of them did an excellent job.
The full-slate law was especially harmful in the years when Illinois had cumulative voting for the lower house of the legislature, before 1981. The cumulative voting law said that each district elected three representatives. If a ballot-qualified party only wanted to run one nominee in a district, then the voters were permitted to cast all three of their votes for that one candidate. Or, if a party ran two, then voters could give each of the two one and one-half votes. But, unqualified parties were forced to run a “full slate”, meaning three candidates. Thus their candidates couldn’t take advantage of the cumulative voting system.
The Harold Washington Party had challenged the full-slate law in 1990, along with a challenge to the number of signatures, in a case called Norman v Reed, which went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the party won the part of the case about the number of signatures, the U.S. Supreme Court avoided settling the full-slate issue. Later, the Green Party had challenged the full-slate law in Illinois state court, but in 2005 the state court upheld the law, in a case called Green Party v Henrichs.
Supporters of the National Popular Vote Plan, and others who are also dissatisfied with current presidential election procedures, will hold a forum at Stanford University, October 7, Saturday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Among the speakers will be two members of Congress, Jaime Raskin of Maryland and Anna Eshoo of California. Thanks to Paula Lee for this news. Here is more about the event.
