Eighth Circuit Asks Nebraska to Respond to Kent Bernbeck’s Request for Rehearing En Banc

Posted on by August 9, 2016
Reply

On August 9, the Eighth Circuit asked attorneys for Nebraska to respond to the petition for rehearing en banc, in Bernbeck v Gale, 15-1983. The issue is the county distribution requirement for statewide initiatives. The U.S. District Court had invalidated the law, but the Eighth Circuit had ruled 2-1 on July 28 that the plaintiff doesn’t have standing.

It is unusual for a petition for rehearing en banc to get this type of response. The response shows that the judges are taking the matter seriously.

Ohio Newspaper Reporters do Poor Job of Investigating Presidential Substitution

Posted on by August 13, 2016
27

On August 9, at least three large newspapers in Ohio took at face value the statement of an Ohio elections official who asserted that no stand-in presidential or vice-presidential candidate had ever before submitted a petition. Here is the Cincinnati story. And here is the Cleveland story. UPDATE: here is the Toledo Blade story.

The truth is that presidential petitions in Ohio have used stand-ins in the past. The Libertarian presidential independent petition in Ohio in 1996 listed Ed Clark as the stand-in presidential candidate, and David Bergland as the stand-in vice-presidential candidate. John Anderson’s Ohio petition used a stand-in for vice-president in 1980. The Constitution Party and the Reform Party both used an independent petition in Ohio in 2000, and Ohio let both of them alter their vice-presidential nominees that year. But the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Columbus Dispatch, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer reporters did not investigate, and simply believed the Ohio elections official.

Ohio election law 3513.31(F) says, “If a person nominated by petition as an independent withdraws, the vacancy so created may be filled by a majority of the committee of five, as designated on the candidate’s nominating petition.”

Illinois Trial State Court Strikes Down Law Barring Independent Candidates if the Candidate Voted in March Primary

Posted on by August 9, 2016
3

On August 9, a trial court in Illinois struck down the 2012 law that says no one can qualify as an independent if he or she had voted in a party primary in March. See this story. If any appeal is filed, it will go directly to the State Supreme Court. The case is DePoister v Effingham County Electoral Board, 2016-MR-69.

Reform Party Nominates Rocky De La Fuente for President

Posted on by August 9, 2016
19

On August 9, the Reform Party National Committee facebook page announced that Rocky De La Fuente is the party’s nominee for President. The party had held a national convention in Bohemia, New York, on July 29. The delegates met the candidates but did not at that time make a selection. The selection was made a few days ago by e-mail. Only the delegates who had shown up on July 29 were permitted to vote. Rocky’s vice-presidential nominee is Michael Steinberg.

The Reform Party is on the ballot in Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, although the Mississippi Reform Party, headed by Shawn O’Hara, makes its own decisions regardless of what the national party does. Thanks to a commenter at Independent Political Report for the news.

No one Challenges Any Pennsylvania Statewide Petitions

Posted on by August 9, 2016
1

The Pennsylvania challenge period has passed. No one challenged the signatures of the Constitution, Green, Libertarian Parties, or the independent petition for Rocky De La Fuente. However, the Pennsylania Department of State rejected De La Fuente’s petition because the Department believes that the sore loser law applies to him. He was on the ballot in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary in Pennsylvania.

No other presidential candidate has ever before been denied a place on a November ballot in Pennsylvania because he or she ran in a presidential primary. De La Fuente plans to sue Pennsylvania to get on the ballot. The basic arguments against applying a sore loser law to a presidential primary are: (1) the true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector, and they aren’t sore losers; (2) the true candidates in Pennsylvania’s presidential primaries are running for Delegate to a national convention; (3) the US Supreme Court ruled in 1995 in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton that states cannot add to the constitutional qualifications for federal office. To apply a sore loser law to a presidential candidate is to say that the candidate is not eligible because of past political behavior, and that is creating a qualification that is not listed in the U.S. Constitution. Petition requirements are not qualifications because they are not personal to the candidate and anyone can collect signatures for a candidate; similarly filing fees are not personal to the candidate because anyone can pay the fee for the candidate.

A challenge was filed to the Libertarian nominee for Attorney General, not because of petition problems, but because he is not an attorney. The party is free to substitute a new nominee if it wishes.