Former New York State Senator Cecilia Tkaczyk Files Paperwork Listing Herself as State Chair of Women’s Equality Party

Posted on by August 29, 2015
3

Former New York State Senator Cecilia Tkaczyk has filed a list of party officers and bylaws for the Women’s Equality Party of New York, listing herself as state chair. She was a Democratic State Senator for two years, 2013-2015. Here is a link to her filing. Here is a link to the wikipedia page about her.

The New York Women’s Equality Party already has a rival set of party officers. The party became ballot-qualified in November 2014 by polling over 50,000 votes for Governor, for its nominee, Andrew Cuomo, who was also the Democratic, Working Families, and Independence Party nominee. In New York, when a group becomes a fully-qualified party by polling over 50,000 votes, its statewide nominees are given the power to determine the identity of the new party’s officers. Governor Cuomo and his Lieutenant Governor running mate then signed papers choosing someone else as state chair of the Women’s Equality Party, but the other two statewide nominees did not sign that paperwork. State law says it is supposed to be signed by a majority of the statewide nominees. Therefore, the original filing is legally flawed.

Tkaczyk will sue to establish her claim to be state chair. The original chair is a registered Democrat and plans to remain a Democrat. By contrast, Tkaczyk has filled out a voter registration form listing herself as a member of the Women’s Equality Party. Thanks to Michael Drucker for the link.

Nielsen Merksamer, Law Firm That Always Intervenes in Lawsuits over California Top-Two, Asks U.S. Supreme Court Not to Hear Top-Two Case

Posted on by August 29, 2015
11

Nielsen Merksamer, the California law firm that always intervenes in cases having anything to do with California’s top-two has asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear Rubin v Padilla. Rubin v Padilla is the minor party lawsuit that argues the top-two system injures voting rights in the general election.

The Nielsen Merksamer brief says, in a nutshell, that voters have no right of choice in a general election other than just two candidates. It says voters who don’t like their limited choices in November should have voted in June. Of course, not all voters could have done that. Some will have attained age 18 after the primary is over, some will be newly naturalized citizens who had not been naturalized at the time of the primary, and some will have moved into California too late for the primary.

The Nielsen Merksamer brief highlights the minority of court decisions that have upheld independent candidate petition deadlines in the spring, but does not mention the far more numerous lawsuits that have struck down early deadlines. The brief also says that in Lawrence v Blackwell, an Ohio case that upheld the non-presidential independent deadline, “all candidates were subject to the same deadline.” This is factually incorrect. The Ohio law provided that primary candidates had to file 60 days before the primary, but independent candidates had to file on the day before the primary.

California Tells U.S. Supreme Court it Doesn’t Wish to Respond to Cert Petition in Top-Two Case

Posted on by August 28, 2015
4

Attorneys for the state of California have notified the U.S. Supreme Court that the state does not intend to file any response to the cert petition in the minor party lawsuit against the top-two system. This is fairly common behavior for states at this stage. If the U.S. Supreme Court later decides it wants a response from the state, it will notify the state.