Arizona Senate Passes Bill Outlawing Paying Initiative Petition Circulators Per Signature

Posted on by March 23, 2017
2

On March 22, the Arizona Senate passed HB 2404, which outlaws paying initiative and referendum petition circulators on a per-signature basis. The bill had passed the House on February 23, but the Senate version is different, so the bill must return to the House.

The bill does not make any allowance for paying a bonus for high production. That alone will make the bill tough to defend in court, assuming it is signed into law. Thanks to ElectionLine for this news. The vote in the Senate was 17-13. Democrats oppose the bill. It seems conceivable that there will be a referendum petition against the bill if it is signed into law.

North Carolina Senate Also Overrides Gubernatorial Veto of Bill Affecting Judicial Elections and Ballot Access

Posted on by March 23, 2017
Reply

On March 23, the North Carolina Senate voted to override the gubernatorial veto of HB 100. The House had done the same on March 22, so the bill is now law. It contains two separate subjects. It moves the independent petition deadline for all office, even president, from June to April. And it makes trial court judicial posts partisan instead of non-partisan.

Moving the deadline for independent candidates to April will be held unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze makes this clear. The legislature was very foolish to make this change, because there is already a federal lawsuit challenging the ballot access laws for independent candidates, and it will be very difficult for the state to defend itself. The case is Leifert v North Carolina State Board of Elections, m.d., 1:17cv-147, filed February 23, 2017.

The legislature was also foolish to provide that independent candidates for trial court judicial posts need a petition of 2% of the number of registered voters. The law for other district offices (legislature and U.S. House) requires independent candidates to submit a petition of 4% of the number of registered voters. The state will be hard-pressed to explain why its needs are satisfied with a 2% petition for some district offices, but a 4% petition for other district offices. Thanks to Kevin Hayes for the news.

Connecticut Working Families Party Fields Its Own Nominee in Special Legislative Election

Posted on by March 23, 2017
Reply

The Connecticut Working Families Party almost always nominates candidates who are also Democratic nominees. However, in the upcoming April 25 special election to fill the vacant state house seat in the 7th district in Hartford, the Working Families Party is running someone in opposition to the Democratic nominee.

The Working Families nominee is Joshua M. Hall. The Democratic nominee is Rickey Pinckney. They are the only candidates running. See this story. In the November 2016 election, the only person on the ballot for this seat was Doug McCrory, who was the Democratic nominee but not the nominee of any other party. The Working Families Party did not involve itself in the 7th district in the November 2016 election. The seat is empty because Representative McCrory resigned earlier this year, because he had been elected to the State Senate in a special election in February 2017.

Alabama Governor Uses Ballot Access Win Last Year as an Excuse Not to Hold Special U.S. Senate Election

Posted on by March 23, 2017
Reply

An Alabama state court is currently processing a lawsuit over whether Alabama’s Governor must call a special U.S. Senate election this year. The vacancy exists because U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions resigned to become Attorney General. The Governor does not want a special election for that seat until November 2018, but he is being sued, because the law says special elections must be called “forthwith” if the vacancy occurs more than four months before the seat would have been up anyway.

In the latest brief filed by the Governor, he says there should be no special election this year because last year, a U.S. District Court struck down the petition requirement for independent candidates in special elections. See this story. The case is Zeigler v Bentley, Montgomery Circuit Court, cv2017-900338.

The obvious rebuttal to the Governor’s point is that the state is free to lower the number of signatures for an independent candidate in special elections, as an alternative to greatly expanding the time allowed for an independent to gather 35,413 valid signatures. The case last year was Hall v Merrill, U.S. District Court, m.d., 2:13cv-663. The state is appealing that decision.