The American Bar Association/Bureau of National Affairs Bloomberg publication “Manual on Professional Conduct” for attorneys here takes note of the August 12 ruling in the Ohio Libertarian Party ballot access case. The journal reported that a U.S. District Court Magistrate had ruled that the Libertarian Party is entitled to know who paid the legal fees for the individual who challenged the party’s primary ballot access petitions for Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General.
The Chicago Sun Times of August 26 has this article about the ties between the Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bruce Rauner, and the security firm hired to persuade Libertarian petitioners and petition signers to recant.
The Wyoming Secretary of State has determined that two statewide independent candidates have enough valid signatures and will appear on the ballot. They are Curt Gottshall for U.S. Senate, and Don Wills for Governor.
The two candidates are not associated together. Gottshall is the first independent candidate for U.S. Senate from Wyoming since 1924. Wills in the first independent candidate for Wyoming Governor to appear on the ballot since 1958. Here is Gottshall’s campaign web page. Here is Wills’ campaign web page.
U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Piersol will hear Libertarian Party of South Dakota v Gant on Thursday, August 28, at 10 a.m. This is the case over whether the party’s nominee for Public Service Commissioner, Ryan Gaddy, should be on the ballot. South Dakota law says a party cannot nominate a non-member. Gaddy filled out a voter registration card switching to the Libertarian Party shortly before the party nominated him at its August 9 convention, but the state takes the position that the change of party is not in effect until the card has been received and processed. The Libertarian convention was on a Saturday, so it was impossible for the change to be processed on the day it was filled out.
In any event, the party depends on the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, which said that the First Amendment’s freedom of association clause protects a party’s right an nominate a non-member if it wishes to.
The state takes the position that the U.S. Supreme Court opinion Clingman v Beaver means the law is valid. However, Clingman v Beaver is about whether a party can force the state to hold an open primary for it (assuming the party is entitled to its own primary), not about which individuals a party may nominate. Furthermore, 5 justices in Clingman v Beaver wrote to say that courts should be aware that major party legislators frequently write election laws for the illegitimate purpose of insulating the major parties from competition, and that courts should keep this in mind when they adjudicate ballot access cases.
Late in the day on August 26, the California Assembly passed AB 2351, so the bill is now through the legislature and on its way to Governor Jerry Brown. It eases the definition of “political party.” Thanks to C.T. Weber for this news.
