California Bill to Eliminate Loyalty Oaths for Candidates for Political Party Office

On April 2, the California Assembly Elections Committee introduced AB 2766. It repeals loyalty oaths for candidates for county central committee. The current election law requires candidates running in the Democratic, Republican, and American Independent Party primaries, for party office, to swear that they don’t belong to an organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the government. These laws were held unconstitutional on November 1, 2013, by a Superior Court in San Luis Obispo County, in a lawsuit called Barta v Bowen, cv11-665.

Ohio Supreme Court Keeps Democratic Candidate on Primary Ballot

On April 2, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that George Maier should remain on the Democratic primary ballot. He is a candidate for Sheriff. His ballot position had been challenged on the grounds that he doesn’t meet the election law qualifications for Sheriff: that the candidate must have been employed within the four years immediately prior to the qualifying date as a highway patrol officer or as a full-time peace officer. That last phrase is vague and has been the subject of many lawsuits over the past decade.

The 12-page decision
is State ex rel Balas-Bratton v Husted, 2014-1406.

The primary is May 6, which is only slightly more than a month away.

South Carolina Government Files Brief in Open Primary Lawsuit

On March 31, South Carolina election officials filed their Fourth Circuit brief in Greenville County Republican Party v Way, 13-2170. The issue whether the Greenville County Republican Party has standing to challenge state laws that require parties to nominate by open primary, unless three-fourths of the party’s convention delegates approve using a convention and unless the voters who vote in that open primary also approve switching to a convention.

The government brief insists that the Greenville County Republican Party does not have standing to challenge the open primary, because the state Republican Party is not a co-plaintiff. The government does not mention the U.S. Supreme Court opinion San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee v Eu, in which various county organizations of the Democratic Party, and a single county organization of the Republican Party, won a lawsuit against California election laws that told parties how to structure themselves, and told them they could not endorse candidates in their own primaries.

The Greenville County Republican Party also complains that even when it pays for its own municipal primaries, it is still required to open its primary to all voters, not just party members. But the government’s brief says South Carolina law lets parties nominate by convention in municipal elections, so the party isn’t being required to hold a city primary.

Eleventh Circuit Rules that Florida Violated Federal Law in 2012 When it Trimmed Voter Registration Rolls

The 1993 federal law nick-named “Motor-voter”, but which is actually called the National Voter Registration Act, prohibits states from completing “any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters” during the 90 days before a federal primary or a federal election.

On April 1, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Florida violated this law in 2012, when it tried to match names on the voter registration rolls with two other databases, looking for individuals who had registered to vote even though they are not citizens. Arcia v Florida Secretary of State, 12-15738. One database was the list of individuals who, when they applied for a drivers license, presented ID to get their drivers license that suggested that individual is not a citizen (such as a green card). The other database is the federal “SAVE” list, prepared by the Department of Homeland Security.

Florida matched names on these other databases during the period 90 days before the election, which the federal voter registration law prohibits. Florida defended itself by saying the federal law only applies to individuals who were eligible to register in the past but are no longer eligible, as opposed to aliens, who were never eligible. The court used the plain meaning of various ordinary words to rebut that idea.

A practical problem with Florida’s program was that sometimes individuals who had not been citizens at the time they got their drivers license, or at the time they appeared on the SAVE list, had later become citizens. Thus Florida was removing some voters from the rolls in error.

The decision was 2-1. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the news.