California Officials Discover two Somewhat Contradictory Election Laws, Relative to Presidential Elections

Posted on by August 17, 2016
5

California election code section 13105(c) says, “If for a general election any candidate for President or Vice President has received the nomination of any additional party or parties, the name(s) shall be printed to the right of the candidate’s own party.” But section 13210(c) says, “In the case of candidates for President and Vice President, the words “Vote for one party” shall appear just below the heading “President and Vice President.”

The American Independent Party and the Republican Party are jointly nominating Donald Trump for President, so under the first-named law, Trump’s name will be listed once, with both party names after his name. But the second-named law then makes no sense, because the ballot will not give Trump voters the opportunity to vote for just one party for President.

The problem could be solved if 13210(c) were amended to say, “Vote for one.” The existing law is already discriminatory against independent presidential candidates, because it seems to suggest that there never are any independent presidential candidates on the ballot.

Sixth Circuit Won’t Stay the Decision of a U.S. District Court That Ordered Michigan to Put a Straight-Ticket Device on November Ballot

Posted on by August 17, 2016
3

On August 17, the Sixth Circuit refused to stay the decision of a U.S. District Court that said Michigan must put a straight-ticket device on this year’s ballot. Here is the decision.

The state said it will ask for en banc review. The Sixth Circuit has 15 full-time judges, and only they can vote on the petition for rehearing. Ten of them are appointees of Republican presidents, and five are appointees of Democratic presidents. It happens that all three judges who were on the original panel are appointees of Democratic presidents. They are Judge Karen Nelson Moore, who wrote the opinion; Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, who is not full-time and thus can’t vote on the request for rehearing en banc; and Judge Jane B. Stranch.

Judge Gilman wrote separately to say that the August 17 decision should not be taken to mean that the U.S. Constitution requires Michigan to include a straight-ticket device. He said that the August 17 decision only means that the device should be on the 2016 ballot. His concurring opinion hints that if Michigan would permit early voting, or no-excuse absentee voting, the outcome would probably be different. Also the opinion hints that if Michigan removed party logos from the ballot, the result might be different. The groups and individuals who filed the case had worried that because Michigan voters are accustomed to having a straight-ticket device, there is reason to fear that if it is removed, some voters will believe that if they draw a circle around the party logo, they will think they have voted for all nominees of that party. When Missouri removed the straight-ticket device, but retained party logos, there were voters who made that mistake. Missouri then responded by removing the party logos. Thanks to Thomas Jones and Rick Hasen for this news.

Better for America Sues New Mexico Over Petition Validity

Posted on by August 17, 2016
4

Better for America, which attempted to qualify as a party in New Mexico by the June 30 deadline, was told that its petition is 86 signatures short. The party has filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing that it really does have enough valid signatures. See this story. The Independent American Party won a similar lawsuit in New Mexico state court in 2012. The Secretary of State had determined that it didn’t have enough valid signatures for its U.S. Senate nominee, but the State Supreme Court reversed the Secretary of State and put the nominee on the ballot.

Better for America has not nominated anyone for president yet, but it is assumed that it will nominate Evan McMullin.

South Dakota Constitution Party Asks U.S. District Court for Reconsideration, on Whether its Nominees for U.S. Senate and Legislature Should be on Ballot

Posted on by August 17, 2016
Reply

On August 17, the South Dakota Constitution Party asked a U.S. District Court to reconsider its August 15 order, which had denied injunctive relief of putting the party’s nominees for U.S. Senate and state house on the November 2016 ballot. Here is the 6-page brief. The court had said the complaint in this case was not specific enough, but the request for reconsideration has persuasive authority that the U.S. District Court erred.