As reported earlier, Flint, Michigan, is having a mayoral election this summer, but currently none of the four candidates’ names will be on the ballot. According to this story, state legislators who represent Flint, including the minority leader in the State Senate, are working to write a bill that would ease the problem. At the very end of the story, the article says the Secretary of State is aware of the effort, and does not plan to take a position on the proposed legislation.
On May 8, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a resident of Guam is entitled to get a ruling on whether a particular Guam election law is unconstitutional. Guam law says residents who are descended from someone who was living in Guam in 1898 are entitled to register to vote in a special election on the future political status of Guam. The future election will ask eligible voters if Guam should become independent, join a compact of free association with the United States, or apply for statehood.
The plaintiff is not descended from someone who was living in Guam in 1898, but he wanted to register for that election. The U.S. District Court in Guam had refused to adjudicate the claim, on the basis that the election won’t occur until 70% of the eligible residents sign up, and so far the number of people who have signed up is far below that percentage. But the Ninth Circuit said the plaintiff is entitled to have his case heard, even if it is not known if the election will ever be held. The majority opinion says, “Unequal treatment is an injury even if curing the inequality has no tangible consequences.”
The case now goes back to U.S. District Court. It is Davis v Guam, 13-15199. It had been argued August 27, 2014, so took almost ninth months to be written. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
California Assemblymember Frank Bigelow has decided not to advance his AB 372 this calendar year. This is the bill that says write-in candidates for Congress and partisan state office who place second in the June primary (and thereby have a constitutional right to be on the November ballot) must pay a filing fee after the primary is over.
California has two-year sessions, so he might try to advance the bill in 2016, but he won’t this year.
On May 7, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party of Arizona asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the April 2015 decision in Arizona Libertarian Party v Bennett, 13-16254. The issue is the voter registration form, which gives the two largest parties a checkbox but requires voters who wish to register into any other qualified party to write-in the name of that party in the “other” line. The Ninth Circuit had this is only a trivial burden and upheld it on the basis of saving money.
On May 7, the California Republican Party notified a U.S. District Court that its trademark infringement lawsuit has been settled. The Asian American Small Business PAC had put the well-known stylized elephant logo on some campaign literature. Although the campaign literature was ostensibly issued in support of a Republican candidate for State Senate in a special election, the Republican Party did not support that candidate, who was the only Republican on the ballot. The Republican candidate herself had stopped campaigning and did not want voters to vote for her. The Asian American Small Business PAC, it was believed, actually supported one particular Democrat in the race, and wanted to persuade Republican voters to vote for the Republican so they would be less likely to vote for another Democrat in the race who is more conservative.
The case is California Republican Party v Asian American Small Business PAC, e.d., 2:15cv-505. There is little case law on whether trademark law protects political party names and symbols. The details of the settlement will not be made public, but it is likely the PAC paid the Republican Party some money in order to have the case dismissed.
