Arizona Election Law Bill Amended to Vastly Increase Primary Ballot Access Petitions for Smaller Qualified Parties

On June 6, a conference committee in the Arizona legislature amended HB 2305 to make it vastly more difficult for members of small qualified parties to get themselves on a primary ballot. Current law sets the number of signatures needed for a candidate to get on his or her own party’s primary ballot as a percentage of the number of members of that party. But the bill changes that, so that the number of signatures needed is a percentage of all the registered voters from all parties.

Existing law requires signatures equal to one-half of 1% of party membership, to get on the primary ballot for statewide office. Thus Libertarians only need about 125 signatures of party members, and Greens only need about 27 signatures, and members of Americans Elect only need about 2 signatures. If the bill is signed into law, members of all parties, large and small alike, would need 5,376 signatures of party members to get on a primary ballot. For statewide office, the bill requires one-sixth of 1% of all the registered voters. It would continue to be true that only party members, and registered independents, could sign these primary petitions. This is the same type of system used in Massachusetts and Maine to keep small qualified party members from getting on their own party’s primary ballot.

If the bill is signed into law, there is reason to believe it would be held unconstitutional. In Storer v Brown, the U.S. Supreme Court said that petitions should be evaluated by arithmetic…if the number of required signatures, divided by the number of eligible signers, is greater than 5%, the law is almost certainly unconstitutional. HB 2305, as applied to the Green Party, would require a number of signatures approximately equal to the number of all the registered Greens in the state. The state would probably defend the law by saying that Greens have the ability to get primary signatures from the ranks of registered independents. But the party could argue that it has a constitutional right to exclude independents from voting in its primary, and if it did that, its members then couldn’t get primary signatures from registered independents.

The number of write-ins (for parties other than newly-qualifying parties) needed to be nominated in a primary is equal to the number of signatures needed to get on the primary ballot, so using write-ins at the primary would also be virtually impossible if the bill becomes law.

California Political Blog Believes Mayor of Ontario, California, Injured his Chances by Opting to be “No Party Preference” on Ballot

Scott Lay runs a well-read blog about California politics news called AroundtheCapitol. On June 6 he expressed the opinion that Ontario, California Mayor Paul Leon injured his chances in next month’s special legislative election, by changing his registration from Republican to Independent. Under California’s law governing ballot labels for independent candidates, he must now have the label “no party preference” on the ballot. A lawsuit is currently pending in the 9th circuit, Chamness v Bowen, that challenges the law that requires independent candidates to have that unattractive label on the ballot.

Irregular Times Web Page Discusses the Founding of the 1787 Party

As noted earlier on this web page, a new party called the 1787 Party is in the process of being established. The blog Irregular Times has noted this development, and has turned its excellent investigative talents toward learning more about the party. Irregular Times was the best news source during the period 2010-2012 for news about Americans Elect. See here for the Irregular Times post about the 1787 Party.

Ralph Nader Asks for Reconsideration in Maine Lawsuit Against the Democratic Party’s Behavior in 2004

On May 30, Ralph Nader asked the Maine Supreme Court to reconsider its May 23 opinion, which said he is not entitled to a trial in his lawsuit against the Democratic Party and its allies for their behavior in the 2004 presidential election. Here is the motion for reconsideration, which is eleven pages. When the motion talks about “petitioning”, it does not mean the process of circulating a petition to get on the ballot. In this context, “petitioning” means legal activity.

Even if you don’t read the entire document, be sure to read the last two pages.

Nevada Legislature Passes Discriminatory Deadline for Some Parties to Certify Presidential Nominees

On May 24, the Nevada legislature passed AB 48, the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill. Among other provisions, the bill sets up discriminatory filing deadlines for qualified parties to notify the state of their presidential and vice-presidential nominees. The larger parties continue to have a September deadline, but the smaller qualified parties must certify their nominees by the last Tuesday in August.