Here is a link to the New Jersey U.S. Senate election returns, which are almost halfway counted as this post is being posted.
Reply
On October 16, the British Supreme Court upheld British law, and ruled that two particular prisoners who are serving life terms may not vote. See this story, which has a link to the 63-page opinion. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
The Realistic Balance Party, a party that exists only to contest city elections in Middletown, Connecticut, still doesn’t know if its candidates will be on the November 5, 2013 ballot. See this story. A decision from a lower state court is expected by the end of the week.
Several similar lawsuits had been adjudicated recently in a few other Connecticut cities and towns. A new state law that year said that parties that nominate by convention must obtain the signatures of all their nominees, on the certificates that the party submits to election officials. The new law was not publicized and courts have been trying to determine if due process for these parties and their nominees was violated when they were kept off the ballot.
On October 15, the Colorado State Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that Amendment 66 should remain on the ballot. Opponents of the initiative had charged that the petition should be rejected. Colorado requires notarization of petitions. Opponents said that the notary public himself or herself should have written in the type of identification that petitioner had presented, such as a drivers license. Instead, on some sheets, the petitioner had filled in that blank, instead of the notary public. The initiative needed 86,105 valid signatures, and had 89,820 valid signatures, assuming the points raised in the lawsuit were disregarded.
Also opponents of the initiative had said that some sheets were invalid because the petitioner didn’t always include his or her permanent address. Here is an editorial about the lawsuit. The editorial expresses the view that the objections to the petition are not important enough to invalidate the petition.
On October 15, a California State Court of Appeals permitted the city of Palmdale to proceed with its November 5 election for city council. However, it is still not certain that the results will be allowed to stand. A lawsuit is currently pending against the city’s at-large city council elections, based on the California Voting Rights Act, which prevents at-large city elections if the at-large system seems to prevent a sizable ethic or racial minority from winning any seats on the council.
On September 30, a Superior Court Judge had enjoined the election. Then the State Court of Appeals reinstated it, partly on the technicality that the plaintiffs had not filed a bond. But then the Superior Court Judge had ruled that the bond isn’t needed, and the election was off again; but now it is on.