Alaska State Court Hears Democratic Party Lawsuit to Let Independents Run in Democratic Primary

Posted on by April 10, 2016
1

On April 8, an Alaska state court heard oral arguments in Alaska Democratic Party v State, 1ju-16-533. The Democratic Party had filed this lawsuit on February 22, 2016, saying it wants the ability to let independent candidates seek the Democratic Party nomination. State law says no one except a party member can run for a party nomination.

At the hearing, the state mostly argued the lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds that the party hasn’t yet changed its bylaws to express the party’s position. The party responds that is because the bylaws can only be changed at the convention, which is in May, and if the lawsuit must wait, that will make it difficult to implement the new policy in time for the August 2016 primary. See this story.

Utah Supreme Court Interprets Election Law to Require Parties to Let Candidates into its Primary by Petition as Well as by Showing Caucus Support

Posted on by April 9, 2016
Reply

On April 8, the Utah Supreme Court released this five-page opinion in Utah Republican Party v Cox, 2016-0077. It interprets Utah election law to mean that a qualified party must allow candidates into its primary if they submit a petition. The Utah Republican Party had argued that the party has a right to ignore such petitions, and only to allow candidates onto its primary ballot who show substantial support at a party meeting.

The Utah Supreme Court declined to answer the other question that had been posed to it. That other question was what should happen to the Republican Party’s status as a qualified party if it still refuses to accept petition candidates. The Court says it won’t answer that question because it is hypothetical. The Court clearly hopes and expects that the Republican Party will now change its bylaws and permit both types of candidate to run, petition candidates and caucus candidates. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

Another Poll Suggests California November 2016 Ballot Will Have Only Two Democrats for U.S. Senate

Posted on by April 9, 2016
3

On April 8, the Field Poll released a new poll for the June 2016 primary election in California for U.S. Senate. It shows: Kamala Harris 27%; Loretta Sanchez 14%; Ron Unz 5%; Tom Del Beccaro 4%; Duf Sundheim 2%; undecided or other 49%. Harris and Sanchez are Democrats; the other three are Republicans.

There are 34 candidates on the ballot, but the Polling Company did not mention the other choices to respondents. The race has seven Democrats, twelve Republicans, two Libertarians, one Green, one Peace & Freedom Party member, and eleven candidates who are either registered as independents or as members of unqualified parties. Current law does not allow the ballot to mention the party affiliations of the candidates from unqualified parties. A lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on whether the members of unqualified parties should have their party label on the ballot.

Maine Court Says State Cannot Invalidate Petitions because the Notary’s Signature on the Petitions isn’t Similar to Notary’s Signatures on File

Posted on by April 9, 2016
Reply

On April 8, a Maine state court made it very likely that an initiative to legalize marijuana will be on the November 2016 ballot. Proponents needed 61,123 valid signatures and submitted 99,229 raw signatures. Last month the Secretary of State had ruled that 31,338 signatures are invalid because the signature of the Notary Public who notarized those sheets doesn’t resemble that Notary’s signature on file with the state (the state, of course, has a list of all notaries and that list includes the signature of the notary).

The decision is 26 pages long. Birks v Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, Portland Business and Consumer Court, BCD-AP-16-04. State law says the Notary’s signature must be “in the same form as indicated on the notary public’s commission.” The decision says if that law is interpreted to mean that the notary’s signature on petition sheets must closely resemble the notary’s signature on the commission, then it would be unconstitutional. The decision interprets the state law not to mean what the Secretary of State felt it meant. The decision explains why individuals frequently sign their names under difficult conditions and it is not reasonable to expect that the signature of an individual always looks the same. Thanks to Walker Chandler for this news.