Twelve Candidates File for South Carolina Special U.S. House Election

Posted on by March 13, 2017
5

South Carolina will hold a special election to fill the vacant U.S. House seat, 5th district, on June 20. Filing for party primaries and conventions closed at noon on March 13. Five Republicans filed for the Republican special primary; three Democrats filed for the Democratic primary. Among parties that nominate by convention, there are candidates from the Constitution, American, Libertarian, and Green Parties.

The candidate who filed for the Constitution Party nomination, Bill Bledsoe, also filed for the Libertarian nomination. But there are two others seeking the Libertarian nomination, Victor Kocher and N. Cooper. Under a strange South Carolina election law, if Bledsoe fails to get the Libertarian nomination, he will not be permitted to be on the ballot as the Constitution Party nominee, even if the Constitution Party nominates him.

The only candidate who filed for the Green nomination is David Kulma; and the only candidate who filed for the American Party nomination is Josh Thornton. Thanks to Rick Lass for the candidate list.

Federal Election Commission Staff Prepares a Draft of a Possible Ruling, Extending Socialist Workers Party Exemption from Campaign Reporting

Posted on by March 13, 2017
3

The Federal Election Commission will meet on March 23 and decide whether to extend the current exemption from campaign reporting that the Socialist Workers Party has been entitled to since 1974. On March 9, FEC staff prepared a possible draft for a ruling that would extend the exemption until 2020. This draft is far more sophisticated than earlier FEC drafts that denied an extension. To read the new draft, click on the link. Then choose “Pending Advisory Opinion Request.” Then choose “Draft AO Agenda Document No. 17-01-C.”

The new draft says, “The Socialist Workers Party candidate for President in 2016 achieved general election ballot access in seven states and received approximately 12,000 votes. The SWP has not placed any candidates on the ballot for the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives since 2012…the SWP and committees supporting its candidates receive very small amounts of contributions and very low vote totals in partisan elections relative to other political parties. This suggests that the activities of the SWP, its candidates, and committees supporting its candidates have little, if any, impact on federal elections.”

The new draft also incorporates instances of government and private harassment of SWP candidates and supporters that occurred in 2016.

Although there is no guarantee that the FEC commissioners will choose this draft, as opposed to the earlier drafts denying the extension of the exemption, the obvious higher quality of this draft makes it seem likely that it will be accepted by the Commissioners.

Many Write-in Candidates are Campaigning for Pennsylvania Special Legislative Election

Posted on by March 12, 2017
9

Pennsylvania holds a special election on March 21 to fill the vacant state house seat, 197th district, in Philadelphia. With no Democrat on the ballot, and the Green Party nominee also not on the ballot, only a Republican is on the ballot. But only 5% of the district’s voters are registered Republicans. This has led to many individuals campaigning as write-in candidates, according to this story.

Pennsylvania has no write-in filing procedure. All write-ins must be counted, under the law, although in the recent past Philadelphia election officials have violated the law and ignored all write-ins.

Rocky De La Fuente Brings his California Ballot Access Case to Ninth Circuit

Posted on by March 12, 2017
1

Rocky De La Fuente, an independent presidential candidate last year, currently is suing California over its requirement that independent presidential candidates in 2016 needed 178,039 signatures. On March 10, De La Fuente argued in the Ninth Circuit that the U.S. District Court that denied his request to be put on the ballot should be instructed not to depend on the Hawaii precedent Nader v Cronin.

The U.S. District Court last year had denied De La Fuente’s request to be put on the ballot, on the basis that his lawsuit was unlikely to win. The U.S. District Court in 2016 noted that the Ninth Circuit in 2010 had upheld Hawaii’s 2004 independent presidential petition requirement of 3,711 signatures. The U.S. District Court in 2016 said that because Hawaii required 1% of the last presidential vote, and California requires 1% of the number of registered voters, the cases are virtually the same, and therefore the California De La Fuente case is very unlikely to win.

The U.S. District Court in California still hasn’t ruled on whether the California law is constitutional, and will do so in the future. But in the meantime, De La Fuente wanted the Ninth Circuit to tell the U.S. District Court not to rely so heavily on the Hawaii case. But the Ninth Circuit, which heard this case on March 10, seemed inclined to stay out of the case at this point, and not consider that issue until after the U.S. District Court rules on declaratory relief. The three judges who heard the case on March 10 were Marsha Berzon, Morgan Christen, and Richard Paez. The hearing only lasted 10 minutes.

Courts Invalidate Congressional Districts in Texas and Legislative Districts in Virginia

Posted on by March 11, 2017
4

On March 1, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously invalidated twelve Virginia state house legislative districts in Bethune-Hill v Virginia State Board of Elections, 15-680. The basis for the decision is that the legislature relied too heavily on race when it drew the boundaries. The decision says that the state’s excuse, that all the districts at issue comport with traditional good districting practices (such as compactness, and respecting county and city boundaries), is not good enough. States must not depend too heavily on race when they draw boundaries.

On March 10, a 3-judge U.S. District Court invalidated three U.S. House districts in Texas. That case is Perez v Abbott, western district, SA-11-cv-360. The vote was 2-1. The majority said the legislature’s lines depend too heavily on the proportion of voters in each district who are Latino. The dissent said the lines were drawn for partisan reasons (which is permitted). But the majority said that, although it is true the motivation was partisan, the means still matter, and the means were to draw districts manipulating the number of members of ethnic groups. The case is especially complicated because the ruling concerns the 2011 districts. The 2011 districts were altered somewhat by a new plan in 2013, but the majority said the case is not moot because the principles used in the 2011 districting need to be evaluated because they are likely to recur, unless it is determined that such means are either unconstitutional or violate the Voting Rights Act.

See this story about the Texas decision. Thanks to Rick Hasen for news about the Texas decision, which came down in the evening.