Maine will hold a special election to fill the vacancy in the State Senate, 19th district, later this year. The date hasn’t been set yet. Maine law lets qualified parties nominate in special legislative elections by party caucus. The Democratic, Republican, and Green Parties have all arranged to hold caucuses for that purpose. See this story.
On July 11, a Michigan State Appeals Court agreed with the trial court that D. Etta Wilcoxon should be on the August 2013 ballot as a candidate for City Clerk of Detroit. The election is non-partisan. Wilcoxon needed 500 valid signatures. She was told she didn’t have enough. She attempted to demonstrate that she did have enough, but apparently was not permitted to do the necessary double-checking. See this story. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
Alabama will hold a special election later this year to fill the upcoming vacancy in the First U.S. House District. The date of the special election won’t be set until Congressman Jo Bonner resigns on August 15. Normally, independent candidate petitions and petitions to qualify a political party in Alabama must carry the date of the special election. However, the Secretary of State has designed petition forms for this upcoming special election that can be used now. The petition says, “We, the undersigned, are qualified electors in the State of Alabama’s First Congressional District and as such hereby request and petition that the political party known as (fill in the blank here) be included on the official ballot for the office of United States Representative for Alabama’s First Congressional district in the Special General Election to be held on a date yet to be determined to fill the vacancy in said office upon the resignation of the current office holder in the 113th Congress.”
Some months ago, it was reported here that the Ohio Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill repeals the Ohio ban on out-of-state circulators. That bill, SB 47, unfortunately was amended before it passed, so that now all it does is repeal the out-of-state circulator ban for independent presidential petitions. The bill was signed March 22.
The Ohio ban on out-of-state circulators was struck down in Nader v Blackwell, 545 F.3d 459 (2008). Apparently the legislature believes that because Nader was an independent presidential candidate, therefore his court victory only applies to independent presidential petitions, and not other petitions. But there is nothing in the decision itself to bolster that belief. Judge Clay’s concurrence says, “Our decision that portions of sec. 3503.06 are unconstitutional as applied to Ralph Nader has the same practical effect as a declaration that the portions of 3503.06 which Nader challenges are facially unconstitutional.”
On July 10, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the individuals and groups who challenged Nevada’s “None of these candidates” ballot option lack standing. Therefore, the lawsuit is dismissed. Townley v Miller, 12-16881. Here is the 17-page opinion.
The basis for the challenge had been that Nevada discriminates against voters who vote for “None of these candidates”, because even if “None of these candidates” gets the most votes, it has no effect, and whichever candidate in that race had more votes than any other candidates still wins, even if “None” outpolled that candidate.
The Ninth Circuit said the voters who intended to vote for “None” don’t have standing because the relief they are asking for makes them worse off. All the plaintiffs had asked for a ruling that “None” should be taken off the ballot, instead of asking for a ruling that “None” actually defeat all the candidates if “None” gets the most votes. The decision says if these voters got what they say they want, their voting rights would be shrunk, not expanded. At oral argument, the attorneys for the Republicans had argued that the legislature wouldn’t have passed “None” back in 1976 if it had been binding, so therefore the Republican Party had no choice but to ask that “None” be removed from the ballot. The decision doesn’t acknowledge this point.
The Ninth Circuit said the two Republican nominees for presidential elector, and the Nevada Republican Party, do have some elements of standing, because it is plausible that having “None” on the ballot subtracts from votes that would otherwise go to Republicans. However, the presidential elector candidates and the Republican Party still don’t have standing because the theory that “None” is unconstitutional (because it isn’t binding) is not related to the harm done to the Republicans. In theory, a new lawsuit, filed by voters who said they intend to vote for “None” and who want “None” to be binding, might still conceivably win.
