Florida State Court Again Rules that Write-in Candidates are “Real” Candidates

On June 17, a Florida state court trial judge ruled that a particular write-in candidate is a “real” candidate, and therefore his existence as a candidate cannot be ignored. See this story. Florida’s Constitution says that when all the candidates for a particular office, including write-in candidates in the general election, are from the same party, then all voters, and not just members of that party, can vote in the primary for that office.

In this case, and several previous cases over the same issue, proponents of letting all voters vote in the primary for a particular office say that the write-in candidate only filed in order to keep the primary closed, and that the motives of the write-in candidate should be taken into consideration. But the Florida Supreme Court earlier this year, and both federal and state courts in the past, have repeatedly ruled that the motives of the write-in candidate cannot be taken into consideration.

The real problem in Florida is that over half of all partisan offices only have one candidate on the general election ballot. This is because Florida filing fees are so unreasonably high. Yet no one in Florida ever seems to notice or care that Florida’s fees stifle free elections. The fees are 6% of the annual salary, which means over $10,000 for Congress. If the filing fees were far lower, the number of general election races with only one candidate on the ballot would be far fewer.

Another point the media misses is that under the U.S. Supreme Court opinion California Democratic Party v Jones, a party has a freedom of association right to avoid having its nominees chosen by members of other parties, so even if the write-in issue were resolved the other way, the party with the primary could insist that its primary not be opened up to all votes.

Lawsuit Filed to Invalidate New Michigan Bill Requiring Initiative Petitions to be Completed in 180 Days

On June 16, a lawsuit was filed in Michigan state court against SB 776, which was passed recently and limits the circulation period for initiatives to 180 days. Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee v Johnson, Lansing, 16-131-MM. The plaintiff needed 252,523 valid signatures, and gathered approximately 354,000. However 137,000 signatures were considered invalid because they had been collected before the start period for this initiative.

The bill setting the 180-day limit had been introduced February 10, 2016, and wasn’t passed until May 18. It was signed into law on June 6, long after the sponsors had been working on this initiative. Before the bill was passed into law, the Secretary of State had an administrative requirement that signatures be collected within 180 days, which had been enforced starting in 1986.

The lawsuit charges that (1) the bill can’t go into effect immediately because it didn’t pass with two-thirds in each house of the legislature: (2) the bill violates the State Constitution, which seems to say that initiatives can be collected over a period of three and one-half years; (3) the law violates the U.S. Constitution. There are other issues raised by the Complaint as well. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the information about the lawsuit.

Kansas State Court Again Rules that Voters who are Registered for Federal Elections May Vote in All Elections

On June 16, a Kansas state trial court again ruled that Kansas voters who are considered registered to vote in federal elections must be deemed registered to vote in all elections. The basis is that there is no Kansas statute giving authority to the Secretary of State to set up two dual systems of voter registration, one for federal office and one for all office. See this story.

Rocky De La Fuente Files North Carolina Ballot Access Lawsuit

On May 16, 2016, Rocky De La Fuente, an independent presidential candidate, sued North Carolina over the requirement that independent presidential candidates must submit 89,366 valid signatures by June 9. The requirement is 2% of the last gubernatorial vote. De La Fuente v Amoroso, 1:16cv-470, middle district. On June 15, his Complaint was amended. The original filing had sued the wrong Defendant.

The case is assigned to Judge Thomas D. Schroeder, a Bush Jr. appointee. This is the first lawsuit to challenge the North Carolina 2% petition requirement for an independent presidential candidate. Only once in history has any independent candidate successfully met the requirement. Ross Perot in 1992 is the only independent presidential candidate who ever succeeded in getting on the ballot, in the entire history of North Carolina government-printed ballots. Back when Perot did it in 1992, it was even worse; it was 2% of the total number of registered voters.

The lawsuit will depend partly on the March 2016 U.S. District Court decision from Georgia that struck down a petition of approximately 50,000 signatures for independent presidential candidates and the presidential nominees of unqualified parties.

San Francisco Independent Candidate for U.S. House May Overtake Republican Candidate and Qualify for November Ballot

San Francisco election officials still have 10,000 ballots to count from the June 7 primary. As of the morning of June 16, the vote count for U.S. House, 12th district, is: Democrat Nancy Pelosi 163,456; Republican Bob Miller 16,021; independent Preston Picus 15,843; Green Barry Hermanson 13,633. As the provisional ballots have been processed, Picus has been gaining on Miller.

If Picus places second, that will be only the second time that any independent has qualified in a California top-two race, if there was at least one Democrat and one Republican also running in the primary. The first instance was in 2012 in the 33rd U.S. House district in Los Angeles County, when independent Bill Bloomfield placed second in the primary, even though a Republican and a Democrat were also in the race. In that race, Democrat Henry Waxman was re-elected.