Ninth Circuit Refuses to Reconsider Ruling that Says Parties Cannot be Banned from Endorsing Judicial Candidates

On August 16, the Ninth Circuit refused to reconsider Sanders Republican Central Committee v Fox, 12-35816. Earlier the Ninth Circuit had struck down Montana’s law making it a criminal offense for a political party to endorse a candidate for judge. The law had existed since 1935, the same year Montana converted its judicial elections to non-partisan elections.

The case did not settle the parallel question of Montana’s ban on political party contributions to candidates in judicial elections.

Montana says it may ask for U.S. Supreme Court review in this case. Thanks to Mike Fellows for this news.

Fourth Circuit Sets Hearing Date for North Carolina Ballot Access Case

The Fourth Circuit will hear Pisano v Strach, 13-1368, on Tuesday, October 29, at 9:30 a.m. in Richmond, Virginia. The issue is North Carolina’s May petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. A subsidiary issue is whether the U.S. District Court erred when it refused to let the plaintiffs (the Green Party and the Constitution Party) engage in the discovery process, so as to ask the state for detailed information about why the May petition is necessary.

Ballot access cases are pending in several circuits besides the Fourth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has a case on the residency requirement for petitioners in Alaska, and a case on Arizona’s discriminatory voter registration form that lists only two of the five qualified parties. The Eleventh Circuit has a case on Georgia’s petition requirements for presidential candidates. The Third Circuit has a case on Pennsylvania’s challenge system. The Sixth Circuit has a case on Tennessee’s ballot access requirements for newly-qualifying parties and whether it is constitutional to always give the two major parties the best spots on the ballot.

The Tenth Circuit has a case brought by an independent candidate and her supporters that does not concern ballot access, but concerns Colorado’s discriminatory contribution limits.

New Jersey Governor Still Hasn’t Acted on Bill, Passed in June, to Move State Election Date This Year to October

At the end of June, the New Jersey legislature passed AB 4237, which moves this year’s election for Governor and state legislature from November 5 to October 16. This bill, if signed, would save taxpayers $12,000,000, because the state is holding a special U.S. Senate election on October 16 anyway.

Governor Chris Christie has neither signed the bill, nor vetoed it. He is free to postpone his decision until the Assembly reconvenes, which might be in September.

Colorado Supreme Court Won’t Hear Appeal of Decision on Deadline for Candidates to get on Special Election Ballots

Late on August 15, the Colorado Supreme Court voted 3-3 not to hear the lawsuit called Libertarian Party of Colorado v Gessler. Therefore, the party’s win in the lower state court stands. As a result, all candidates who wish to run in the two upcoming State Senate Elections have until August 26 to submit their petitions. Minor party and independent candidates need 600 signatures. The elections will be September 10. They are simultaneously recall elections and special elections, but if the voters vote to retain the State Senator being recalled, the special election itself (held on the same ballot) becomes moot. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

Pennsylvania State Court Disqualifies Two Independent Candidates for Failing to List Members of “Substitution Committee” on Petition

On August 15, a lower Pennsylvania state court removed two independent candidates from the Harrisburg ballot, for city elections on November 5, 2013. See this story. The two candidates didn’t fill out the “substitution committee” blank on their petitions. A “substitution committee” has the authority to replace the candidates listed on the petition, if those candidates die or withdraw. It doesn’t make sense to have a mandatory “substitution committee” for independent candidates. That part of the petition is more to assist minor parties, who could be expected to want to replace any nominee who couldn’t run, but the same logic doesn’t apply to independent candidates. Thanks to Curtis Boyd for the link.