American Independent Party, and Rocky De La Fuente, Ask State Court to Find that Secretary of State Violated Several Election Laws

Posted on by December 9, 2016
10

On December 9, some leaders of the American Independent Party, and independent presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente, filed a lawsuit in state court in Sacramento, charging that the Secretary of State broke several election laws, and asking for a court order that in the future, he and his successors follow the election laws. De La Fuente v Padilla, Superior Court, Sacramento.

Rocky De La Fuente asks for an order that in the future, write-in presidential candidates not be rejected just because some of their presidential elector candidates list addresses on their declaration of candidacy forms that are different than the registration addresses.

Leaders of the American Independent Party ask for an order that, in the future, Secretaries of State not accept presidential elector candidates who do not meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as presidential electors. The Complaint charges that the Secretary of State accepted a Republican presidential elector who holds an office of trust or profit with the United States.

Section 7300 of the California election code specifies that certain particular Republican “nominees” will always become Republican presidential electors (for example, the Republican nominees for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Controller, Attorney General, and Secretary of State), and that this law was ignored. Of course, the law is obsolete, because no party any longer has nominees for those offices.

The complaint and the papers to be filed in the future will attempt to show that the Republican Party was late with its list of electors. The lawsuit argues that in the future, the deadline must be enforced.

The AIP also asks that future ballots tell the voters that they are voting for presidential electors, not just for president and vice-president. The Complaint points out that Sacramento County ballots did tell the voters that they are voting for presidential electors, but no other counties did that.

The AIP argues that it was illegal for the ballots in many counties to list abbreviate the party’s name as simply “AI”.

Here is the Complaint.

Ballot Access Improvement Bill for Indiana

Posted on by December 9, 2016
3

An Indiana legislator has taken the first step to introduce a bill to improve ballot access. He has submitted a request to the legislative counsel to draft a bill to lower the number of signatures for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. It is somewhat likely that the bill will lower the petition from 2% of the last vote for Secretary of State (34,195 signatures for the 2012 election, and 26,700 for the 2016 election) to exactly 9,000 signatures.

Texas Tribune Investigates Write-in Votes in Texas for Candidates Who Didn’t File

Posted on by December 9, 2016
1

The Texas Tribune has gathered data on write-ins for president last month in three of the state’s biggest counties, Harris, Tarrant, and Travis. The reporters learned information about write-ins for candidates who had not registered as write-in candidates. Over 4,000 write-ins were cast for Bernie Sanders. Thanks to Gene Armistead for the link.

Colorado Responds to Presidential Elector Lawsuit

Posted on by December 9, 2016
7

On December 9, Colorado filed this brief in Baca v Hickenlooper, the case over whether presidential electors can vote for any qualified presidential candidate, or whether they can be replaced if they vote for someone different than expected.

The only U.S. Supreme Court precedent on this subject is Ray v Blair, 1952. Most people probably don’t realize when they read about Ray v Blair that in 1952 and previous years, the Alabama Democratic Party chose its candidates for presidential elector in a primary. Nowadays, no party chooses candidates for presidential elector in a primary. In Ray v Blair, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Democratic Party rule that no one could get on a party’s primary ballot (as a candidate for presidential elector) unless that person signed a pledge promising to vote for the party’s eventual presidential nominee. Thus Ray v Blair was about the right of parties to control who could seek their nomination. It was not about the ability of presidential electors to vote freely in December. Thanks to Politico for the link.

UPDATE: here is the brief of the intervenor, the Colorado Republican Committee.

Ohio Voters Who Sponsored the Gary Johnson 2016 Presidential Petition Ask Secretary of State to Recognize Them as the Libertarian Party of Ohio

Posted on by December 9, 2016
3

On December 2, the Ohio voters who officially sponsored the Gary Johnson petition to be on the ballot in 2016 for president asked the Ohio Secretary of State to recognize them as the Libertarian Party. Those voters’ names appeared on the petition, and they were the individuals who (after the petition was submitted) informed the Secretary of State that the stand-in presidential candidate whose name had been on the ballot were resigning, and that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were the replacements.

Section 3517.01(A), which governs how new parties may qualify for the ballot, permits groups of voters who sponsor candidates for President or Governor to apply for recognition as a new party, provided their candidate gets at least 3% of the vote. The official election returns show that he got 3.17% in Ohio.

Here is the letter.