Birmingham News columnist Joey Kennedy has written this article about Alabama’s deplorable ballot access law and the failure of the 2013 legislature to do anything about it. There is a lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court against the law, which the article does not mention. Thanks to Ed Still for the link.
The New Jersey Socialist Party has voted to file a lawsuit against the state, to obtain the ability of voters to register as members of the Socialist Party. In 2001 the state appeals court ruled that it is unconstitutional to force all voters to register only “Democratic”, “Republican” or “independent.” In response, the state started letting voters register into the parties that had filed that lawsuit, but no others. The 2001 lawsuit had been filed by the Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and Reform Parties.
Some years later the Conservative Party of New Jersey filed a similar lawsuit, and the state then conceded and agreed to let voters register into the Conservative Party. But in all these years, the state has never amended its statute to update its policy on how a group may qualify to let voters register into such a group. The state has also informed the Socialist Party that it is not entitled to relief, so the only option seems to be a lawsuit.
Since 1877, Michigan has had an election law that says, “A priest, pastor, curate, or other officer of a religious society shall not for the purpose of influencing a voter at an election, impose or threaten to impose upon the voter a penalty of excommunication, dismissal, or expulsion, or command or advise the voter, under pain of religious disapproval.” Anyone who breaks this law is guilty of a misdemeanor.
On October 22, 2012, Pastor Levon Yuille filed a lawsuit, alleging that he believes that voting for a politician who publicly supports abortion and gay marriage is a sin, and also alleging that he is afraid if he preaches that, he is subject to a criminal penalty. Yuille v Schuette, 2:12cv-14652, eastern district. The state defended the constitutionality of this law, saying,, “Religious officials have the power to wield immense, even compulsory, influence over some voters in a way that other individuals may not – especially those in their own congregation…The potential influence of a religious official over some voters – and therefore, the potential for intimidation and coercion – is far greater and even harder to detect than that caused by leafleting or other political activity.” The state also said the law is not enforced and therefore the plaintiff lacks standing. Also the state says the law only refers to activity at the polls, which seems a strained interpretation.
The U.S. District Court, and the 6th circuit, then ruled that the plaintiff lacks standing. The Michigan law is still on the books. Although there are 42 election law bills pending in the Michigan legislature, there is no bill to repeal this law.
This outcome stands in sharp contrast to a similar incident in 2012 in Montana, where a law said, “A person who is a minister, preacher, priest, or other church officer my not, other than by public speech or print, urge, persuade, or command any voter to vote or refrain from voting for or against any candidate, political party ticket, or ballot issue submitted to the people because of the person’s religious duty.”
A lawsuit, Zastrow v Bullock, cv 12-18-RFC, was filed to overturn that law. Montana admitted the law was unconstitutional and signed a consent decree not to enforce it. Then, in 2013, Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch put a repeal of the law in her omnibus election law bill, HB 120. That bill passed and therefore the Montana law is now repealed. The fact that two such similar cases had such different outcomes is a sad commentary on the random nature of litigation and also an interesting commentary on the difference between Montana’s Secretary of State and Attorney General (both were Democrats during 2012), compared to Michigan’s Secretary of State and Attorney General (both are Republicans). Thanks to Thomas Jones for the information about the Michigan lawsuit.
On May 17, the Maine Joint Committee on State and Local Government passed LD 1309. The bill triples the amount of public funding that candidates for state office may receive. See this story.
On May 16, the California Assembly passed AB 1419 unanimously. This is the bill that permits newly-qualifying parties to qualify as late as July, instead of January, in presidential election years. The bill now goes to the Senate.
The California Assembly did not bring up AB 1038 on May 16, but that bill could receive a vote on Monday, May 20. AB 1038 makes it illegal for a newly-qualifying party, or any party, to pay registration drive workers, directly or indirectly, on the basis of how many registered voters in any particular party they obtain.
