Internal Dispute in Independent Party of Connecticut Over U.S. Senate Nomination

Posted on by September 1, 2016
3

The Independent Party is a ballot-qualified in Connecticut for all statewide offices except President. In this year’s U.S. Senate race, two factions of the party support different candidates for the party’s U.S. Senate nomination. If they can’t agree, the Secretary of State won’t print anyone on the November ballot as the party’s nominee, and then it will lose its ballot status for the office of U.S. Senate for the 2018 election.

The two major party nominees are incumbent Democrat Richard Blumenthal, and Republican Dan Carter. One faction of the Independent Party wants to also nominate Dan Carter, so that he would be on the November ballot twice, under both the Republican label and the Independent label. This faction of the party is centered in Danbury, where the Mayor is an Independent Party leader even though he is a registered Republican.

The other faction, centered in Waterbury, wants the Independent Party to run its own nominee for U.S. Senate, John R. Price, who is not the nominee of any other party. See this story.

In 2012 the Independent Party nominated Rocky Anderson for President (who was the Justice Party nominee around the remainder of the U.S.). But in the 2012 U.S. Senate race, the Independent Party nominated the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Linda McMahon. Anderson and McMahon had very little in common politically, but that showed the two factions of the Independent Party, at least in 2012, were able to get along with each other. Thanks to Joshua Van Vranken for the link.

Greensboro, North Carolina News & Record Op-Ed Criticizes North Carolina Ballot Access Laws

Posted on by August 31, 2016
Reply

The Greensboro, North Carolina News & Record has this op-ed by editorial writer Doug Clark. It criticizes North Carolina ballot access laws that relate to minor parties and independent candidates.

The piece says that Jill Stein is on the ballot in 40 jurisdictions. That is correct, as of August 31, but by election day it will probably be 44, 45, or 46.

Rocky De La Fuente Wins One Point in South Dakota Ballot Access Lawsuit, But Still Doesn’t Have Enough Valid Signatures

Posted on by August 31, 2016
5

On August 30, U.S. District Court Judge Roberto Lange ruled from the bench in De La Fuente v Krebs, 3:16cv-3035. He said the state cannot invalidate signatures because the signer failed to fill in the “county” blank. The rationale is that no city or town in South Dakota is partly in one county and party in another. Therefore, the Secretary of State can easily know which county the signer lives in, by seeing what town or city the signer shows. The Secretary of State uses random sampling so the validation process is not very difficult for a petition that only requires 2,775 valid signatures.

But Judge Lange upheld another restriction, which is that sheets of signatures are entirely invalid if the Notary Public made a technical error when notarizing that sheet. De La Fuente had argued that notarization is not needed. But in South Dakota, notaries don’t charge to process ballot access petitions, so the judge felt that the notarization requirement is not a severe burden.

De La Fuente doesn’t quite have enough valid signatures, even though he won on the issue of signatures without a county listed. The case remains alive and it is likely De La Fuente will amend his complaint to also attack the South Dakota ban on out-of-state circulators for candidate petitions. It will be difficult for South Dakota to defend that restriction, because South Dakota allows out-of-state circulators to work on a petition to qualify a new party.

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

Posted on by August 31, 2016
2

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.