Out-of-State Petitioner for Rocky De La Fuente Files Reply Brief in Connecticut Case

Posted on by February 24, 2016
1

As noted earlier, Connecticut election officials maintain that Shawn Wilmoth can’t circulate a presidential primary petition in Connecticut, because he doesn’t live in Connecticut. Wilmoth is seeking a federal court order that would permit him to work.

Connecticut says he can’t be allowed to circulate for a Democratic presidential candidate in Connecticut because he is not a registered Democrat in Connecticut. Then Connecticut says that this prohibition is needed to protect the Connecticut Democratic Party from outsiders. But Wilmoth’s reply brief points out that he is a member of the Democratic Party, and there can’t be any threat to the Connecticut Democratic Party if Democrats from outside Connecticut circulate petitions for a Democratic candidate for President.

Wilmoth lives in Michigan, where voter registration forms don’t ask applicants to choose a party. But the Michigan Democratic Party has its own methods for individuals to join the party, and Wilmoth has in that way shown he is a Democrat. Here is Wilmoth’s Reply brief.

California Superior Court Rules that Initiative Backed by Governor Brown Can’t Start Collecting Signatures Yet

Posted on by February 24, 2016
1

California initiative proponents start the process by submitting a proposed initiative to the Attorney General, who then writes a title for it. Then the proponents can put the title on their petitions and start collecting signatures. Sometimes the Attorney General’s office is so backlogged with proposed initiatives, it takes a few weeks or even months for them to do this work.

According to this story, a Superior Court Judge ruled that a proposed initiative, that had already been through the process, has been altered so much since then that it must start all over again. That, in turn, will delay the signature-gathering process for that initiative.

Sixth Circuit Agrees with U.S. District Court that Ohio Cannot Make it a Crime to Knowingly Make a False Statement About a Candidate

Posted on by February 24, 2016
Reply

On February 24, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in Susan B. Anthony List v Driehaus, 14-4008. The opinion agrees with the U.S. District Court that Ohio’s law, making it a crime to knowingly make a false statement about a candidate, violates the First Amendment.

The Sixth Circuit had upheld this law back in 1991, but the new opinion overrides that precedent, based on intervening decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on free speech. There had also been many other attempts to strike down the law in the 2000’s decade, but they always resulted in a decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing. In this case, earlier the lower courts had also ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, but then the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the plaintiffs in this case do have standing.