Fourth Circuit Seems Determined to Avoid Constitutional Issue in South Carolina Republican Party Lawsuit on Private Open Primaries

On October 29, the Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in Greenville County Republican Party v Way, 13-2170. Anyone can hear the 48-minute oral argument at this link.

The Greenville County Republican Party challenges the state law that requires county parties to pay for administering partisan primaries for city office within that county. The state law also requires those parties to hold an open primary. The party argues that certainly if it is required to pay for the primary, it can decide for itself who can vote in those municipal primaries.

The panel seemed eager to look for a way out of ruling on that issue. The lower court had held that the party doesn’t have standing. Section 7-15-395 says, “Any political party conducting a primary in this State is responsible for carrying out the provisions of this article by making ballots and election material available so that the persons named in 7-15-320 may be enabled to vote in primary elections. All expenses incurred by any political party in conducting elections subject to the provisions of this article shall be borne by such political party.” Another state law says that state and county governments may not pay for the expenses of partisan primaries for city office.

Notwithstanding these laws, the panel seems to believe that the Greenville County Republican Party need not pay for those expenses, because it is not a “party.” Section 7-1-20 defines “party” to be a “political party, organization or association certified as such by the State Election Commission.” Obviously once the Republican Party is recognized as a qualified party by the state, all of its county units are similarly recognized, but the panel seems to think the definition of “party” excludes the county party.

Earlier this year, the city of Greenville voted to conduct non-partisan city elections in the future, so that leaves a method open to the panel to declare the case moot. However, the attorney for the county Republican Party argued that the city could switch back to partisan elections in the near future, so the case is not moot.

Lou Allstadt, Prominent Opponent of Fracking, Endorses Howie Hawkins for New York Governor

On October 30, Lou Allstadt, a prominent opponent of fracking, endorsed Howie Hawkins, the Green Party nominee for Governor of New York. See this story about the endorsement, and this article about Allstadt. Allstadt is a former executive vice-president of Mobil Oil and a resident of Cooperstown, New York. Although he is an independent, as the article says, he was elected to local partisan office as the Democratic nominee.

The Democratic nominee for Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, says he won’t decide his policy on fracking until more is known. Hawkins is against fracking. The New York gubernatorial race is one example of many that shows the value of minor party and independent candidate activity. If New York state had a top-two system, the only candidates on the November ballot would be Rob Astorino and Andrew Cuomo, and it wouldn’t be possible for anti-fracking voters to cast a vote that communicates their belief.

Pennsylvania Statewide Petition Requirement in 2016 Likely to be Approximately 25,000, Unless Law is Eased

The number of signatures required for Pennsylvania statewide minor party and independent candidates in 2016 will be determined by how many votes are cast in the November 2015 statewide partisan judicial elections. According to this story, there will be three vacancies on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court filled in November 2015.

The existence of the 2015 judicial vacancies is good news for minor party and independent candidates for statewide office in 2016. If there were no vacancies, then the 2016 petition requirement would be based on turnout in the 2014 election, which will be far higher. In 2005, there were no statewide judicial vacancies, so the number of signatures in 2006 was based on the 2004 turnout. That is why, in 2006, the requirement was 67,070. If there had been statewide judicial vacancies in 2005, the 2006 requirement would probably have been 20,000 or so.

A reasonable guess for the 2016 requirement is 25,000 signatures. However, if the legislature eases the requirement in 2015, it may be less. It seems probable that one of the two pending ballot access cases in Pennsylvania, or both of them, will win, in time to improve ballot access for 2016.