According to this story, Galveston County is reprinting 5,000 ballots because they erroneously failed to give an independent candidate for County Judge any partisan label on the ballot. The faulty ballots list the independent candidate but give him no label whatsoever. Thanks to Electionline for the link.
Eric Ostermeier, whose blog Smart Politics frequently compiles historic facts about elections, now lists all independent U.S. Senators in U.S. history. He points out that there have never been more than two independents in the U.S. Senate at any one time, but that if Greg Orman wins in Kansas next month, there will be three. See here.
Ostermeier’s list doesn’t differentiate between Senators who were elected as independents, versus Senators who became independents while they were in office but were never elected as independents. Among those on his list, Wayne Morse of Oregon, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, and Jim Jeffords of Vermont never were elected as independents.
Ostermeier differentiates between independent Senators, and Senators who were members of minor parties. His inclusion of Dean Barkley as an independent seems questionable. Barkley, appointed to the U.S. Senate by Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, was a leader of the Independence Party and one of its founders. Ostermeier recognizes this to a certain degree, but he still chooses to list Barkley as an independent because a U.S. Senate record lists him that way.
On October 2, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Williams-Yulee v Florida Bar, 13-1499. The plaintiff was a candidate for state judge in a Florida election. She sent a mass e-mail to thousands of individuals on lists that she felt might be interested in her campaign, asking for small campaign contributions. She was disciplined because the Florida Bar does not permit candidate for judge to ask anyone for a campaign contribution. Instead, the candidate is supposed to have a campaign manager who makes the request.
Also on October 2, the Court surprisingly agreed to hear Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 13-1314. The Court warned that after the oral argument in this case, it is possible the conclusion will be that the Court should never have taken the case. Article One of the U.S. Constitution says “legislatures” are supposed to write election laws for Congressional elections (unless Congress decides to supercede that power). Arizona has an independent redistricting commission. The Arizona legislature wants the power to draw U.S. House district boundaries, so it sued, arguing that Article One means only legislatures can draw district boundaries.
If the Court rules in favor of the Arizona legislature, that would mean that certain ballot access rules might also be invalid. For example, in Pennsylvania, the state Elections Department set the August 1 petition deadline. The legislature did not set that deadline.
On October 2, the plaintiffs in Frank v Walker, 14A352, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend Wisconsin’s voter photo I.D. law (for voting at the polls) for the November 2016 election. The law has never been in force, but last moonth, the 7th circuit overruled the U.S. District Court and put it in place immediately. Here is the brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, which emphasizes that this type of change so close to the election should not be allowed.
Because the state of North Carolina says it intends to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the recent 4th circuit decision reinstating election-day registration, that makes two states (Wisconsin and North Carolina) in which U.S. Supreme Court action is likely in an election law case in the next few days. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the Wisconsin link.
On October 1, the Fourth Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, ordered North Carolina to restore election-day registration. The majority noted that in past recent elections, African-American voters were substantially more likely to make use of election-day registration than other voters. Here is the decision, which also requires the state to continue to let provisional voters submit their ballots in precincts in which they do not live.
The decision is League of Women Voters of N.C. v State, 14-1845. The lower court had refused to enjoin any of the challenged provisions. This case arose in 2013, after the legislature cut back on various means by which some voters vote.
The panel did not require the state to restore early voting. The difference between what the state was ordered to do, and what it was not required to do, is that the former seemed to the majority to be more important at this stage in the election.
The dissenter, Diana Gribbons Motz, felt it is a hardship on the state to change anything at this point. She quoted from her own opinion in Pisano v Strach, issued a few months ago, in which the Fourth Circuit refused to strike down North Carolina’s May petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
