Twelve Petitions Submitted for Three Chicago Citywide Offices; Nine are Challenged

Posted on by December 16, 2014
1

Chicago holds city elections in February 2015. There are three citywide offices, Mayor, Treasurer, and City Clerk. The elections are non-partisan. All candidates need 12,500 signatures to get on the ballot. If no one gets 50% in February, there is a run-off in April.

For Mayor, ten candidates submitted a petition, but one candidate then withdrew, leaving nine petitions. For Treasurer, only one person filed. For City Clerk, two candidates filed. From those remaining twelve petitions, nine have been challenged, including both petitions for City Clerk. Here is a link to the Chicago Board of Elections web page listing the petitions and their status.

The challenges will be heard starting on Friday, December 19. Here is an article about Willie Wilson, one of the Mayoral candidates whose petition was challenged, even though he submitted 47,500 signatures. Here is a more recent article about Wilson and his reaction to the challenge of his petition.

Eleventh Circuit Refuses to Invalidate Alabama’s March Petition Deadline for Newly-Qualifying Parties

Posted on by December 16, 2014
1

On December 16, the Eleventh Circuit issued a five-page “per curiam” decision in Stein v Chapman, 13-15556, the lawsuit that challenges Alabama’s March petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties in presidential election years. The decision says that because the plaintiffs Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties presented “no” evidence, there is no reason to disturb the filing deadline.

Actually, the plaintiffs presented a great deal of evidence, but it was almost entirely excluded at the U.S. District Court stage because of a legal technicality involving filing a notice of the plaintiffs’ list of witnesses. But even without that problem, there is evidence in the case inside the many depositions that the state of Alabama conducted.

Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made that petition deadlines as early as March are unconstitutional on their face, and therefore evidence is not needed. The decision says, “Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has articulated a clear standard of review for challenges to ballot-access restrictions in a presidential election”, but that is not true, because the U.S. Supreme Court articulated a balancing test in Anderson v Celebrezze in 1983, when it struck down Ohio’s March petition deadline for independent presidential candidates. The Eleventh Circuit opinion quotes the U.S. Supreme Court sentence in Anderson v Celebrezze that “the State has a less important interest in regulating Presidential elections than statewide or local elections”, but having quoted that sentence, the panel ends the discussion, except to return to the point that plaintiffs didn’t present evidence.

If you use the link to read the Eleventh Circuit opinion, you may notice that the front page says the decision is 29 pages, but actually the decision itself is only five pages; the other 24 pages is an attachment.

Federal Election Commission Takes Comments on Proposal to Alter Presidential Debate Rules

Posted on by December 16, 2014
1

On September 11, 2014, Level the Playing Field asked the Federal Election Commission to issue regulations that would alter how presidential candidates gain access to general election debates. In response, the FEC invited members of the public to comment on the idea. That comment period ran from November 18 through December 15, so comments are now closed. Here is a link to the FEC notice, which includes a link to Level the Playing Field’s proposal. Level the Playing Field’s proposal contains a wealth of data showing that the status quo policy is not good policy.

Here is Fairvote’s analysis of the proposal.

In January, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are likely to file a federal lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates. Both of them are seeking the nomination of their parties for president in 2016.

Oklahoma Policy Institute Publishes Research Paper on Oklahoma’s Need to Revise Election Laws

Posted on by December 16, 2014
2

On December 16, the Oklahoma Policy Institute published this 20-page report, “Repairing Oklahoma’s Broken Democracy”, authored by Dr. David Blatt. The Oklahoma Policy Institute is a well-respected 501(c)(3) organization established in 2005.

The Report first discusses voter participation in Oklahoma, and that part of the report is overwhelmingly convincing that Oklahoma elections are very flawed. The Report then discusses a full range of ideas for improving Oklahoma elections, including a very comprehensive section on ballot access for newly-qualifying parties, independent presidential candidates, and initiatives. Even if a reader is not particularly interested in Oklahoma, the Report is a valuable resource for facts about the election practices of all the states. The Report reveals the number of states with voter pamphlets, and the number of states with election-day registration, for example.

Independent Congressional Candidate Files Supplemental Brief in Alabama Ballot Access Case

Posted on by December 16, 2014
Reply

On December 15, James Hall filed this supplemental brief in Hall v Bennett, now pending in U.S. District Court in the middle district of Alabama. The issue is whether independent and minor party congressional candidates in special elections can be forced to submit the same number of signatures as are required in regular elections. The basis for the lawsuit is that in normal elections, candidates have unlimited time to collect the signatures, whereas the time is severely compressed in special elections. This supplemental filing documents that special elections are always called on short notice in Alabama.

The oral argument was November 13, 2014, and Judge Myron Thompson seemed to be curious about the normal time pattern, so Hall did the research and presented it in the supplemental brief.