Rocky De La Fuente Loses Alabama Presidential Primary “Sore Loser” Lawsuit

On August 30, U.S. District Court W. Keith Watkins upheld the action of the Alabama Secretary of State in 2016, when he put Rocky De La Fuente on the November ballot as an independent candidate for president, and then a few weeks later noticed that De La Fuente had appeared on the Democratic presidential primary ballot that year, and removed him.

The decision is only seven pages.  Judge Watkins tried to explain why U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court that said states cannot add to the constitutional qualifications to run for Congress, does not apply to “sore loser” laws.  He wrote, “At root, the sore loser law regulates how to access the ballot, not who can access it.”

One could have made the same argument to uphold congressional term limits.  One could have said, in defense of state laws barring ballot access to candidates who had already been elected to three terms in Congress, that the law only regulates access to the ballot.  One could have said the way to access the ballot is not to have already been elected to Congress three times.

The fifth, ninth, and tenth circuits have all ruled that barring congressional candidates from the ballot because they are not registered to vote is impermissible.  But applying Judge Watkins’ argument, one could have said that a law requiring a candidate to be registered to vote is only a law telling the candidate how to access the ballot, not a qualification.  Judge Watkins did not mention the three circuit decisions striking down laws requiring congressional candidates to be registered voters.

The decision says nothing about the fact that Lyndon LaRouche had run in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary in Alabama, and had also been allowed to appear on the general election ballot as an independent that year, even though the sore loser law had existed back then.

The decision says nothing about the fact that the true candidates being voted on by the voters in a presidential general election are the candidates for presidential elector, not presidential candidates.

Arkansas Independent Candidate Asks U.S. Supreme Court Not to Hear the Case He Won in the Eighth Circuit

On August 31, Arkansas independent candidate (for Lieutenant Governor in 2014) Mark Moore a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Martin v Moore, 17-156.  The case is about the March petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates.  Moore basically won the case in the Eighth Circuit earlier this year.  The Eighth Circuit said that the deadine is too early, unless the state can demonstrate that it must have such an earlier deadline in order to have time to check the signatures.  The Eighth Circuit remanded the case for more fact-finding to the U.S. District Court.

In response to that, Arkansas asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal, arguing that the deadline is constitutional regardless of what any more facts might show.  Then, Moore filed this brief, saying the U.S. Supreme Court should not take this case.

Santa Fe Faces Lawsuit Over Failure to Implement Ranked Choice Voting

In 2008, the voters of Santa Fe, New Mexico, voted to use ranked choice voting for city elections.  However, the city is still not using ranked choice voting. On August 30, Fairvote New Mexico sued the city over its failure to implement that system.  See this story.

The case is filed in the State Supreme Court, and is State ex rel Perez v City Council of Santa Fe.  The court hasn’t decided yet whether to accept the case.   Thanks to Electionline for this news.

South Dakota Minor Parties File Brief in Ballot Access Case

On August 31, the Libertarian Party of South Dakota, and the Constitution Party of South Dakota, filed this brief in Libertarian Party v Krebs, 4:15cv-4111.  This is the case that challenges the March petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties.  The case is now two years old but still doesn’t have an opinion from the court.

Soon the state will file a brief, and then briefing will be complete.