U.S. District Court Won’t Enjoin New Arizona Law on Number of Write-in Votes Needed in Libertarian Party In Order to be Nominated

On July 20, U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell refused to enjoin the new Arizona law that requires a very large number of write-ins in the primary of a small qualified party, in order for those candidates to be considered nominated. He did not decide the constitutionality of the new law. He said he needs more evidence. Ironically, if the Arizona Libertarian primary results in a complete failure of any Libertarian to receive enough write-in votes to be nominated, that is the sort of evidence that might eventually win the case. The primary is August 30. The case is Libertarian Party of Arizona v Reagan, 2:16cv-1019.

Illinois State Court Says Redistricting Initiative Can’t be on Ballot

On July 20, a lower Illinois state court ruled that the initiative to set up an independent redistricting commission to draws legislative district lines cannot be on the November 2016 ballot, even though it has enough signatures. She said the Illinois Constitution only permits initiatives for measures that makes changes in the procedures of the legislature. See this story. The case is Hooker v Illinois State Board of Elections, 16 CH-6539. The proponents will appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.

Illinois Ballot Access Lawsuit for Thomas Rudd Set for July 21

Thomas Rudd is the Lake County, Illinois Coroner. He is trying to run for re-election this year as an independent candidate. No one argues that he lacks enough valid signatures, but he is not on the ballot because he first submitted a petition to run in the Democratic primary late last year. But later he withdrew that petition and did not actually run in the Democratic primary. He has a court hearing on July 21 to try to get back on the ballot. See this story.

Connecticut Secretary of State Now Says Rocky De La Fuente Petition is Permitted to List Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates from Florida

The Connecticut Secretary of State now acknowledges that there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about Rocky De La Fuente’s independent candidate petition. It lists De La Fuente for President and Michael Steinberg for Vice-President. They both live in Florida. Originally the Secretary of State had rejected it, but now the Secretary of State acknowledges that the 12th amendment does not prohibit Connecticut candidates for presidential elector from voting for someone for both offices who live in Florida. The 12th amendment would only apply to Connecticut presidential electors if they were pledged to Connecticut residents for both offices.

The Connecticut petition will now be checked for signature validity. Meanwhile election officials in Utah and Idaho have verified that De La Fuente has enough valid signatures in those states.

Public Funding Initiative Proponents Submit Signatures to Washington Secretary of State

On July 19, proponents of a Washington state public funding initiative submitted signatures to the Secretary of State. It seems likely the initiative has enough valid signatures to qualify for the November 2016 ballot. Here is the text of the proposal, I-1464. The public funding only applies to legislative candidates, at least for the years 2018, 2020, and 2022. Later, if there is enough money, the program can be expanded to include statewide state offices.

Candidates qualify for public funding by raising at least $10 from at least 75 residents of their district. Qualified candidates can then receive public funding. Every registered voter will have the ability to ask the public funding office to send $50 to each of three candidates. Thus, unlike many other public financing systems, voters who want to help a candidate receive public funding do not themselves contribute any money (except for the initial group of 75 people who each contribute $10).

The office that runs the program would notify each registered voter in the state of his or her personal PIN, which must be used to direct the state office to forward the $50 amounts to the chosen candidates. The initiative makes other changes to campaign finance. The backers of the initiative seem eager to publicize those other changes, and the group’s webpage downplays the public funding part of the initiative. See their web page here. Thanks to the Center for Competitive Politics for the news.