| Page 2788

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Reinstate North Carolina Voter Restrictions

Posted on August 31, 2016 by Richard WingerAugust 31, 2016

In 2013, the North Carolina legislature passed a bill restricting ease of voting. Specifically, it eliminated a lengthy early voting period; it ended the ability of 17-year-olds to pre-register (so that they would automatically be on the rolls as of their 18th birthday); it ended the ability of voters to cast a provisional ballot away from their home precinct; it ended same-day registration; and it required voters at the polls to show photo-ID (on the ID issue, the 2013 law had been very strict, but in 2015 the legislature had softened it and let voters who swore they could not get such ID vote anyway).

On July 29, 2016, all of these restrictions were enjoined by the 4th Circuit. On August 31, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to upset the action of the 4th Circuit. The case in the U.S. Supreme Court is State of North Carolina v North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 16A168. The state had asked for U.S. Supreme Court action on August 15. The U.S. Supreme Court had asked the NAACP to respond by August 25, and the NAACP complied. So, after pondering for six days, the U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 on whether to sustain the 4th circuit. In a tie, the ruling of the lower court stands.

It happens that all three members of the 4th circuit panel had been appointees of Democratic presidents. If, by chance, the 4th circuit panel had consisted of Republican appointees, probably the 4th circuit decision would have gone the other way. Then, if the NAACP had asked for U.S. Supreme Court help, that vote surely also would have been 4-4. This case illustrates that having a U.S. Supreme Court with only eight members causes outcomes to be determined by the Appeals Courts, and by the random events that determine which judges get any particular case. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.

West Virginia Supreme Court Will Hear Ballot Access Case on September 7

Posted on August 31, 2016 by Richard WingerAugust 31, 2016

On Wednesday, September 7, the West Virginia Supreme Court will hear Wells v Miller, 16-0779. The issue is whether anyone who holds the constitutional qualifications for an elected office may be an independent candidate, or whether only registered independents can be independent candidates.

There is no law in West Virginia limiting who may be an independent candidate. But all candidates must fill out a declaration of candidacy, and the state uses the same form for members of parties running in a primary, or for independents and the nominees of unqualified parties running in the general election. Because that form happens to ask for “party”, some individuals believe that means when an independent fills out the form, if he is not “independent” by registration, he or she can’t run.

The case arose when Erik Wells petitioned to run as an independent candidate for Kanawha County Clerk. He is a registered Democrat, and even though he had enough valid signatures, he was challenged. A lower state court removed him from the November ballot. If he loses the case, there are about a dozen other independent candidates this year who will also be removed from the November ballot, even though they weren’t challenged. An interesting detail is that Wells is the husband of the West Virginia Secretary of State, Natalie Tennant.

Many members of major parties have run for president as minor party or independent candidates in the past, including Robert La Follette in 1924, William Lemke in 1936, Strom Thurmond in 1948, George Wallace in 1968, and John Anderson in 1980.

Rapid City, South Dakota Newspaper Carries Op-Ed, Urging Voters to Vote Against Restriction on Independent Candidate Petitions

Posted on August 31, 2016 by Richard WingerAugust 31, 2016

On November 8, South Dakota voters will vote on Referred Law 19. It says that members of qualified parties cannot sign petitions to get independent candidates on the ballot. It also makes it more difficult for new parties to get on the ballot, and more difficult for a member of any qualified party to get his or her name on a primary ballot.

The Rapid City Journal has this op-ed by John Tsitrian, urging voters to defeat Referred Law 19. The legislature passed it last year. It is on the ballot because opponents of the bill, especially Democratic Party activists, successfully completed a referendum petition to see if the voters wish to cancel the law.

U.S. District Court Refuses to Move New York General Election for U.S. House, 3rd District, from November to December

Posted on August 31, 2016 by Richard WingerAugust 31, 2016

On August 30, U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Scullin refused to move the general election for U.S. House, New York 3rd district, from November to December. The Republican primary for that district is October 6. One of the two Republicans running in that primary had asked the court to move the general election for that district only, to a later date, because he said it wasn’t fair to the winner of the Republican primary to have such a short time in which to campaign for the general election. Pidot v New York State Bd. of Elections, n.d., 1:16cv-859. But federal law, since 1872, has told states to hold their congressional elections in November of even-numbered years, in all districts.

The reason the Republican primary in that district is so late is that the same judge had ordered it to be on October 6. The original congressional primary in that district, in June, was tainted because the primary ballot had omitted one of the two Republican candidates, due to a mistaken belief that he didn’t have enough valid signatures. If New York used filing fees instead of petitions for primary ballot access, this incident would not have happened. A majority of states use filing fees and do not require any petitions for primary ballot access.

Matthew Hindman and Bernard Tamas, in Washington Post, Note Increase in Independent & Minor Party Candidates for Federal Office

Posted on August 31, 2016 by Richard WingerAugust 31, 2016

Two political scientists, Matthew Hindman and Bernard Tamas, have this analysis in Monkey Cage in the Washington Post. They show that there are more minor party and independent candidates for federal office now than there were fifty years ago. They are correct. However, they could have noted the drop-off in the number of such candidates on the November ballot starting in 2012, due to the top-two systems in California and Washington, and they did not. In 2014 over half of U.S. House races had no minor party or independent candidates on the November ballot. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.