Arizona Minor Parties File Last Brief in Lawsuit on Discriminatory Voter Registration Forms

Posted on by
Reply

On December 20, the Arizona Libertarian Party and the Arizona Green Party filed their final brief in the Ninth Circuit, in the case that challenges Arizona voter registration forms. The state voter registration forms list the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and give each a checkbox, but if an applicant wants to register into any other party, qualified or not, the applicant must write-in that choice. Voters who wish to be independents apparently are supposed to leave this area of the form blank, although there are probably applicants who write-in “independent”.

Arizona has four ballot-qualified parties, all of which nominate by primary, yet the form suggests that only the Democratic and Republican Parties are qualified. This reply brief takes the state to task, for having said in its brief that Arizona has had 23 qualified parties at one time or another since 1975. Most of the entries on the state’s list were not ballot-qualified parties; the Arizona Assistant Attorney General who wrote the brief confused ballot-qualified parties with groups that merely filed to have write-ins for their presidential nominees counted.

U.S. Supreme Court Sets Conference Date for Nevada Republican Election Law Case

Posted on by
1

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Republican Party of Nevada v Miller, 13-442, at its January 10, 2014 conference. This is the case over whether the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the inclusion of “None of these candidates” on Nevada primary and general election ballots, for statewide office. The Ninth Circuit had said none of the plaintiffs have standing. The plaintiffs include some Republican candidates for presidential elector in the 2012 election.

Five minor parties have filed an amicus curiae brief in this case, urging the court to take the case to recognize more standing for political parties. They are the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Independent American, and America’s Parties.

The original case was filed to challenge “None of these candidates” on the basis that voters who choose this option are being discriminated against, because if “None of these candidates” wins, there is no consequence. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins, regardless of the vote total for “None of these candidates.”

Green, Constitution Parties File Their Ohio Brief

Posted on by
Reply

The Ohio Green Party and the Ohio Constitution Party, which have intervened in the pending Libertarian Party ballot access case, filed this brief on December 23. The issue is whether the 2014 ballot access restrictions passed last month can be enforced for the 2014 election. The oral argument in this case will be on January 6, and the judge has promised an opinion shortly afterwards.

Hawaii Attorney General Publicizes Recent Ruling, Liberalizing Ballot Access for New Parties Running a Presidential Nominee

Posted on by
Reply

On December 23, the Hawaii Attorney General held a press conference to announce his formal opinion 13-2. It says that new or previously unqualified parties can have their party label on the ballot (next to the name of their presidential candidate) when they use the independent presidential petition procedure. That procedure has a very permissive September deadline. Previously it was generally understood that candidates who used that procedure could only have the label “Non-partisan” on the ballot.

The Attorney General’s press release credits the lawsuit filed by the Justice Party last year for causing his office to issue this opinion. The press release says the Elections Office had been interpreting the law to print party labels for candidates who use the independent presidential procedure, all along. But it was more ambiguous than the press release suggests, because no group or candidate had completed the September independent presidential petition in Hawaii since 1992. States often re-interpret their laws, when the previous precedent was long ago.

For example, in 2013, Kansas re-interpreted its law on how a party remains on the ballot in years when President is the only office on the ballot. The former Secretary of State had ruled in 2000 that parties need not poll 1% for President in order to remain on. But the current Secretary of State reversed that, and removed the Reform Party from the ballot in 2013.

Also in 2013, New Mexico re-interpreted its law on how a party remains on the ballot. The new rule is that parties only get one election when they petition for ballot access. But the former Secretary of State had permitted a party to be on the ballot for two elections.

Also, in 2008, Massachusetts re-interpreted its law on whether unqualified parties can substitute a new presidential or vice-presidential candidate, when the candidate listed on the petition withdraws. The new ruling was to deny substitution, even though in 1996 and 2000 and 2004, the state had permitted it.

And, in 2012, Michigan re-interpreted its understanding of whether the sore loser law applies to the presidential primary. In 1980 the state did not believe the sore loser law applied to presidential primaries, but in 2012, it changed that interpretion.

Montana Briefs on Whether Top-Two Ballot Measure Should Remain on 2014 Ballot are Due January 9, 2014

Posted on by
1

On December 10, the Montana Supreme Court ordered both sides in MEA-MFT v State of Montana, OP 13-789, to file briefs by January 9, 2014. This is the lawsuit on whether the top-two election measure should remain on the November 2014 ballot.

The groups that filed the lawsuit, which argues that the measure is invalid, are the MEA-MFT (a union), the Montana AFL-CIO, the Montana Public Employees Association, the Montana Human Rights Network, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs is John Morrison, who was Montana’s elected State Auditor 2000-2004.

The lawsuit argues that the top-two measure is invalid because: (1) an election law says the title of a ballot measure can’t be longer than 100 words, but this measure’s title is 196 words; (2) that the measure improperly includes two measures, one which converts separate primary ballots into a single primary ballot, and the other that says only the top two vote-getters may appear on the November ballot.

In rebuttal, so far, the state argues that the measure has more than 100 words in its title only if code sections that are being amended are counted as words, and the state says code sections should not be counted as words. Also the state says both parts of the ballot measure are related to each other. These arguments will be fleshed out in the briefs that will be filed in January.

OSCE Reports on Norway’s Use of Internet Voting

Posted on by
2

Norway held a parliamentary election on September 9, 2013. The election provided for a pilot project, in which 250,159 voters in twelve municipalities were able to vote on the internet. The OSCE (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights), the outgrowth of the Helsinki Accords, analyzes the entire Norwegian election in this 19-page report. For the analysis of the internet voting experiment, see pages 9-10.

The entire report is interesting. Norway uses proportional representation and that is described also. Norway uses electronic poll-books, so that voters can vote in any precinct. Individuals need not register to vote; the government prepares a list of all registered voters using data already available. Voters can vote as many times as they wish, but only their last vote counts. This reduces the fear that someone else is watching the voter cast a vote, perhaps because the other individual is attempting to bribe the voter. If the voter does feel intimidated, the voter is free to cast another ballot later, eliminating the first ballot. Thanks to Bill Kelleher for the link.