Ralph Nader Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Prevent Pennsylvania 2004 Petition Challengers from Seizing Nader’s Bank Account

On April 25, Ralph Nader asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal from a ruling of a District of Columbia court, that authorized the seizure of $81,102 from Nader’s bank account in Washington, D.C. The appeal is called Nader v Serody, 12-1294. Here is the cert petition. The dispute arose in 2004, when challengers to Nader’s Pennsylvania ballot access petition persuaded Pennsylvania state courts that not only should Nader be kept off the ballot, but that he should pay $81,102 in court costs.

The validity of Pennsylvania’s unique challenge system, which puts petitioning candidates in danger of liability for vast sums of money, is also pending in the 3rd circuit. The new U.S. Supreme Court filing has the comprehensive story of how, after Nader had been ordered to pay the court costs, facts emerged that the challengers themselves had illegally used Pennsylvania state government resources for their challenge. No court in Pennsylvania ever re-examined the costs order to take into account these new developments; nor did the D.C. court take the new information into account when it authorized the raid of Nader’s bank account.

California Assembly Passes Bill Making Aliens Eligible for Jury Service

On April 25, the California Assembly passed AB 1401, which expands the jury pool to include resident aliens as well as citizens. If the bill becomes law, California will be the first state to include resident aliens on juries. See this story. Although this is not technically about elections or election law, it is included here because the story stimulates thought about of the role of aliens who live permanently in the United States, who pay taxes, who have a stake in how well local and state government functions, but who can’t register to vote (except in a tiny handful of certain local elections in a few jurisdictions).

Decision Expected in Macomb, Illinois Lawsuit by Friday, April 26, 4 p.m., Concerning Meaning of “Majority”

According to this story, a state court decision in Illinois will be released on April 26, no later than 4 p.m., in the case over Macomb’s February 2013 alderman election. This is the case in which the vote in one district was 17-16, and the law said candidates who receive a majority are elected, but if no one receives a majority, there is a run-off. But local elections officials said “majority” means at least one whole vote more than half the vote. Half the vote is 16.5, so under the city’s interpretation, because no one got as many as 18 votes, no one had a “majority.”

Weak Oklahoma Ballot Access Reform Bill Can’t Pass This Year

Oklahoma SB 668 lowers the number of signatures for a newly-qualifying party in midterm years, from 5% of the last presidential vote, to 5% of the last gubernatorial vote. Even though it had passed the Senate unanimously, and had passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously, it failed to be brought up on the House floor by the April 24 deadline.

It could conceivably pass next year. Also, if there is another election law bill in conference committee, theoretically such a bill could be amended to include the contents of SB 668, but this seems very unlikely to happen. It continues to be true that the Oklahoma legislature has not voluntarily eased ballot access for newly-qualifying parties since 1924, when the legislature created a 5,000-signature petition procedure for newly-qualifying parties, simply because the 1924 legislature was aware that there was a lot of interest in putting a Farmer-Labor Party on the ballot. Prior to the 1924 law, there was no procedure for a new party to get on the Oklahoma ballot, except by having it qualify in three other states and poll at least 10% of the vote in those other states. Obviously that would have delayed recognition of the new party in Oklahoma by an entire election cycle.

The old 5,000-signature requirement worked fairly well in Oklahoma for 50 years. The state never had a ballot crowded with too many parties. During the 50 years the requirement was in effect, there was no election with more than two minor parties on the ballot. The old law did have the disadvantage of an early petition deadline, which kept several important parties off the ballot, including the Socialist Party in 1932, the Union Party in 1936, the States Rights Party of 1948. The law also failed to work well for Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party in 1948; an ambiguity in the law kept that party off the ballot. But the history of the law utterly debunks the claims by the Oklahoma Attorney General and the Oklahoma Election Board that the existing requirement for 2014 of 66,744 signatures is needed to keep the ballot from being too crowded. Thanks to E. Zachary Knight for this news.

South Carolina Republican Lawsuit to Obtain a Closed Primary Will Have Trial in August

In 2010, the Republican Party of South Carolina filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking to close its primary. The case will finally have a trial in August 2013. The case is Republican Party of South Carolina v State, 6:10cv-1407. The Republican Party will attempt to show that non-members of the party have been voting in its recent primaries.