Nebraska Governor Lets Bill, Making it Easier for a Party to Remain on the Ballot, Become Law

Posted on by May 1, 2017
3

Nebraska LB 34 is now in effect in the state. It makes it easier for a party to remain on the ballot. On April 29, Governor Pete Ricketts let the bill go into effect. However, he didn’t sign it. Governors typically have three choices on a bill: they can sign it, let it become law without their signature, or veto it. Governors occasionally use the middle option when they don’t want to prevent a bill from going into effect, but they don’t completely approve of a bill.

The bill says a party remains on the ballot if it has at least 10,000 registrants. The old law, which this law supplements, said a party also remains on the ballot if it polls at least 5% for any statewide office at either of the last two elections. Therefore, there are now two means for a party to remain on the ballot instead of just one. Nebraska is one of 18 states which gives two methods for a party to remain on the ballot.

Illinois Will Appeal U.S. District Court Decision that Struck down Law, Barring Marijuana Growers from Contributing to Candidates

Posted on by May 1, 2017
Reply

On April 28, attorneys for the state of Illinois filed a notice saying the state will appeal Ball v Madigan to the 7th circuit. This is the case in which the U.S. District Court struck down a state law, saying medical marijuana firms cannot make campaign contributions to candidates for state office.

Procedural Victory in Illinois U.S. House Ballot Access Case

Posted on by April 30, 2017
1

On April 26, U.S. District Court Judge Sue Myerscough denied the motion of the state of Illinois to dismiss the ballot access case that concerns the 5% petition requirement for independent candidates for U.S. House. The case is Gill v Scholz, c.d., 3:16cv-03221.

The case had been filed in 2016 after independent U.S. House candidate David Gill was kept off the ballot. Judge Myerscough put him on the ballot, believing that the 5% petition requirement, as shown by the historical record, is too difficult. The Seventh Circuit removed Gill from the ballot a few weeks later, but did not write anything about the constitutional issue. The state then went back to Judge Myerscough and said the 7th circuit action proves that the law is constitutional. Judge Myerscough wrote on April 26, “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is Denied. This Court previously found that Plaintiffs had established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction. Although the 7th Circuit stayed enforcement of this Court’s preliminary injunction, the Seventh Circuit did not rule on the merits and ultimately dismissed the appeal as moot after the election. The Seventh Circuit did not vacate this Court’s preliminary injunction order despite Defendants’ request that the court do so. Defendants shall file an answer on or before May 10, 2017.”

Georgia Defends Law that Doesn’t Allow Voters to Register After the First Election for the Purpose of Voting in the Runoff

Posted on by April 30, 2017
8

Georgia held a special congressional election in the Sixth District on April 18, but no one got a majority, so there will be a runoff on June 20. Georgia does not allow anyone to register, and have that registration take effect, after March 19. Some voting rights organizations filed a lawsuit on April 20, seeking to permit individuals who weren’t already registered to vote by March 19, to vote in the June runoff. The lawsuit is based on a federal voter registration law which outlaws voter registration deadlines earlier than 30 days before any federal election.

On April 28, the state filed this brief in defense of its law. The U.S. Constitution permits the states to establish voter qualifications, as long as they aren’t discriminatory, and aren’t based on sex or race and don’t set a voting age older than age 18. The state argues that its law, forbidding persons from registering to vote and having that registration take effect in time for a runoff, is a voter qualification.

One of the plaintiffs in the case is a voter who moved into the district a few days after voter registration closed. She couldn’t move into the district until her house sale closed. State law won’t let her vote in the June run-off.

The state also argues that it would be administratively inconvenient to have a different rule for federal office and state office. In some cases, special election ballots happen to have both federal and state office on the ballot. But, this administrative problem is a consequence of the state’s decision to restrict voter registration for runoff elections.