Maine Legislature Makes Write-in Filing Deadline More Restrictive

On March 23, 2016, the Maine legislature passed LD 1484. Among other election law changes, it made the deadline for filing as a declared write-in earlier, from 45 days before the election, to 60 days before the election. The law went into effect on April 10, 2016. Therefore, the July 1 2016 printed Ballot Access News, which had write-in filing deadlines, is in error. The newsletter says the Maine write-in deadline is September 24, but actually it is September 9. Thanks to Thomas MacMillan for this news.

It is not rational for states to set such early deadlines for filing as a write-in candidate. One of the reasons we have write-in space on ballots is to take account of unexpected events that occur in the weeks before election day.

Washington Post Story on Jill Stein’s Receipt of $456,035 in Primary Season Matching Funds This Year

The Washington Post has this article about the primary season matching funds that Jill Stein has received this year. She has received $456,035. The article does not mention that no taxpayer is forced to pay into the public funding program. Instead, the form 1040 asks taxpayers if they wish to have $5 go to the fund. Most taxpayers say “no.”

Hearing Set in West Virginia Ballot Access Case

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chambers will hear Daly v Tennant on September 22, Thursday, at 1 p.m., in the federal courthouse in Huntington, West Virginia. The issue is whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for West Virginia to certify 17 petitioning (independent and unqualified party) candidates for the November ballot, and then remove them on September 16 because they didn’t comply with a requirement that didn’t appear to exist until September 15. UPDATE: here is a newspaper story about the hearing.

Lawsuit Filed to Alter Wording of Pennsylvania Statewide Question

On September 19, a lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court over the wording of a statewide ballot measure. See this story. The voters will be asked if the retirement age for mandatory retirement for judges should be changed from 70 to 75. The people who filed the lawsuit, including a past member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, argue that the wording is confusing. It only asks voters if they want the retirement age to be 75. The ballot measure does not explain that the current age limit is 70 and that if the measure is approved, judges will be able to remain in their jobs for more time than they currently have.