On September 22, Maine Representative Martin Grohman held a press conference in his district to say that he is changing his registration from Democratic to independent. Here is a video clip of that press conference. The Maine House now has 74 Democrats, 70 Republicans, and six independents.
Grohman is in his second term. He did not say if he will run for re-election in 2018. A question asked if he might be an independent candidate for Governor in 2018. He said he is not ruling anything out.
On September 21, an Alaska Superior Court in Juneau held oral argument in Alaska Democratic Party v State. The issue is whether the Democratic Party has the constitutional right to allow registered independents to seek the party’s nomination. State law says no one can get on a party primary ballot unless that individual is a party member. See this story. The case had been filed in 2016.
On September 21, the Ohio State Court of Appeals issued a 35-page opinion in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, 16AP-496. The Ohio Constitution says, “All nominations for elective state, district, county and municipal offices shall be made at direct primary elections or by petition as provided by law.” The Ohio Libertarian Party had filed a lawsuit against the 2013 ballot access law, which says that newly-qualifying parties do not have a primary. The party had argued that the 2013 ballot access law violates the Ohio Constitution, which seemed to mandate that all parties nominate by primary.
The Ohio State Court of Appeals interpreted that part of the Ohio Constitution to mean that the legislature is free to abolish primaries for any parties, and instead to provide that parties without a primary would nominate by petition. This conclusion seems to contradict the historical record, which shows that this part of the Ohio Constitution was added over 100 years ago to stop parties (or at least the major parties) from nominating by convention. The decision has no discussion of the history of this part of the Ohio Constitution.
The decision also rejects the party’s argument that equal protection is violated by forcing new parties to nominate without a primary. Ohio voter registration forms do not ask the applicant to choose a party. Therefore, the only government-provided “membership lists” for qualified parties come from the list of voters who chose a particular party’s primary ballot. The major parties, which always have primaries, obtain a useful list of their adherents by obtaining the list of voters who chose that party’s primary ballot. A newly-qualifying party, which has no primary, doesn’t obtain such a list. But the Court ruled that the disparity does not violate equal protection.
As a result of this decision, there is now no state constitution in any of the 50 states that mandates primaries for all qualified parties. Ohio had seemed to be the only such state. The Oklahoma Constitution gives the legislature the authority to mandate primaries for all qualified parties, but does not say the legislature must do that.
One reason the opinion is so long is that it takes the first fifteen pages to set forth the complicated history of ballot access litigation in Ohio, especially Libertarian Party cases, for the period 2004 to the present.
The Utah Green Party now has enough valid signatures for party status for 2018. This is the first party petition the Green Party has completed this year, anywhere in the nation. The law requires 2,000 signatures. The party did it with volunteers.
On September 19, the Ninth Circuit enjoined a San Francisco ordinance that compels print ads for sugary drinks to carry this statement: “Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.” The statement must be bordered in black and must be so large as to comprise 20% of the square area of the ad.
This decision is one of a long line of cases that prohibit compelled speech. In other words, the free speech part of the First Amendment not only protects the right to speak, but the right not to speak, especially if the compelled speech is not indisputably true. This precedent, like similar precedents, will help the plaintiffs in Soltysik v Padilla, the lawsuit pending in the Ninth Circuit on California ballot labels for members of unqualified parties. Under the California election law, if they are running for Congress or partisan state office, they must have “party preference: none” printed next to their names, even if they do have a party preference. The plaintiff in Soltysik wants “party preference: Socialist” to be his ballot label. He is a registered Socialist. But the laws forces him to say he has no party preference.
The recent decision on San Francisco’s compelled speech can be read at this link. The case is American Beverage Association v City and County of San Francisco, 16-16072.
