Wisconsin Voting Rights Groups Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Suspend Voter I.D. Law for 2016

On October 2, the plaintiffs in Frank v Walker, 14A352, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend Wisconsin’s voter photo I.D. law (for voting at the polls) for the November 2016 election. The law has never been in force, but last moonth, the 7th circuit overruled the U.S. District Court and put it in place immediately. Here is the brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, which emphasizes that this type of change so close to the election should not be allowed.

Because the state of North Carolina says it intends to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the recent 4th circuit decision reinstating election-day registration, that makes two states (Wisconsin and North Carolina) in which U.S. Supreme Court action is likely in an election law case in the next few days. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the Wisconsin link.

Fourth Circuit Tells North Carolina to Bring Back Same-Day Registration for 2014 Election

On October 1, the Fourth Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, ordered North Carolina to restore election-day registration. The majority noted that in past recent elections, African-American voters were substantially more likely to make use of election-day registration than other voters. Here is the decision, which also requires the state to continue to let provisional voters submit their ballots in precincts in which they do not live.

The decision is League of Women Voters of N.C. v State, 14-1845. The lower court had refused to enjoin any of the challenged provisions. This case arose in 2013, after the legislature cut back on various means by which some voters vote.

The panel did not require the state to restore early voting. The difference between what the state was ordered to do, and what it was not required to do, is that the former seemed to the majority to be more important at this stage in the election.

The dissenter, Diana Gribbons Motz, felt it is a hardship on the state to change anything at this point. She quoted from her own opinion in Pisano v Strach, issued a few months ago, in which the Fourth Circuit refused to strike down North Carolina’s May petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Kansas State Court Rules Democratic Party Need Not Nominate Anyone for U.S. Senate

On October 1, a 3-judge panel of the Shawnee County District Court ruled that the Democratic Party need not run anyone for U.S. Senate if it doesn’t wish to. Here is the 22-page decision in Orel v Kansas Democratic Party, 14-cv-958. The panel said the law is ambiguous, but in any event it would be far too burdensome on the Democratic Party if it were required to nominate someone this late in the process. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Montana Libertarian Wins Federal Injunction, Allowing Him to Publish His Closed Complaint Against a State Judge

On September 30, Dan Cox, who was the Montana Libertarian nominee for U.S. Senate in 2012, won a federal injunction allowing him to publish a complaint he made about a state court judge some time ago. In Montana, if anyone files a complaint against a state judge with the Judicial Standards Commission, and the Commission decides that no action should be taken, it is a crime for the complaint to ever be made public. Cox v McLean, cv14-199. The federal court order says the Montana rule on perpetual confidentiality of charges against state court judges violates the First Amendment. Thanks to Mike Fellows for this news.

California Governor Signs Bill, Easing Rules for New Parties to Get on Ballot and Existing Parties to Remain on the Ballot

On September 30, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2351, which makes it easier for a group to qualify as a party in California, and also makes it easier for an already-existing party to remain ballot-qualified. The old law required an already-existing party to either poll 2% for any statewide in a general election, or to have 103,004 registrants (1% of the November 2010 turnout). The old law required a new party to obtain either 103,004 registrants, or submit a petition signed by 1,030,040 valid signatures.

The new law requires an old party or a new party alike to have about 60,000 registrants. Also, an old party can remain ballot-qualified if one of its members polls 2% for any statewide race in a midterm year, in the primary. The new registration requirement is exactly .33% of the total state registration. Currently the state has 17,634,876 voters, so currently .33% is 58,195.

California is the only state that eased the definition of “party” during 2014. During 2013, the only state that did so was Maine, which changed from requiring a petition of 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, to having 5,000 registered members. Before that, the last time a state eased ballot access for new parties and independent candidates, relative to the amount of support required, was in 2009, when West Virginia lowered the petitions from 2% of the last vote cast, to 1%.

As a result of the new law, the two states that require support from the greatest number of supporters to get on the ballot are North Carolina (89,366 signatures) and Oklahoma (66,744).