On March 29, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the June petition deadline for independent candidates. Here is the decision in Trudell v State of Vermont, 2013-18.

The decision has some odd features. Vermont permits “sore loser” candidacies; in other words, candidates who run and lose in a partisan primary may then run as independents in November. Such candidacies are common in Vermont. The decision says one reason that the June petition deadline is fair is that in case someone is going to lose a primary and run as an independent, at least the voters will know what the sore loser is up to, before the August primary. Because the Vermont law requires primary petitions to be submitted in June, and also requires independent candidate petitions in June, if someone expects to lose in the primary and intends to run in November as an independent, the individual must submit simultaneous petitions, one for the primary and one for the general election.

The decision is also odd for admitting that if the independent petition deadline were in August, there would be no election-administration problem. The decision says on page nine, “The Secretary of State’s Office could process independent candidates’ petitions if filed during the first week of August.” But the decision goes on to say that since many independent candidates managed to qualify in both 2010 and 2012, under the June deadline, the burden is not severe.

The decisions seems to be inaccurate on page eight when it talks about a New Jersey federal precedent, Council of Alternative Political Parties v Hooks. In that case, the New Jersey April deadline was enjoined by the Third Circuit, and then the legislature moved the petition deadline to primary day. The discussion of the New Jersey case says, “The (New Jersey) Court concluded that New Jersey had a strong interest in treating all candidates equally by requiring them to file on the same day” but that is the opposite of what was decided in New Jersey.

Two of the five justices wrote a concurrence which is almost a dissent. The concurrence says “That the earlier deadline accomplishes this reduction in choice with a nearly imperceptible benefit is added cause for concern.” There is some reason to believe that the legislature will moderate the June petition deadline to a later deadline, even though the Vermont Supreme Court won’t be forcing the legislature to do that. Thanks to Jerry Trudell for the news about the decision.

On March 21, California State Senator Joel Anderson (R-San Diego) introduced SCA 14, which says that in California legislative races, if anyone gets at least 50% of the vote in the primary, he or she is deemed elected and that legislative office will not appear on the November ballot. He also amended one of his election law bills, SB 148, so that it implements that change if SCA 14 is approved by the voters in 2014.

If this proposal had been in effect in 2012, sixteen of the twenty State Senate races, and 39 of the 80 Assembly races, would have been settled in June instead of November. Furthermore, if this proposal had been in effect in 2012, Republicans would have been elected in four races (State Senate 27, State Senate 31, Assembly 49, and Assembly 65) in June, yet in reality, those same four Republicans were defeated in November 2012. In other words, there are four races in which someone got over 50% in June and yet lost in November. Thanks to Dave Kadlecek for news of these bills.

On March 27, the Ninth Circuit determined that the lawsuit Peace & Freedom Party v Bowen is not a case that can be mediated. Therefore, the case will be heard by a panel of judges in the future. The case was filed on April 3, 2012, when the California Secretary of State refused to print all four of the party’s presidential primary candidates on the party’s own presidential primary ballot. Specifically, she refused to print Peta Lindsay’s name on that ballot, on the grounds that she had determined that Lindsay does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be President; she is under age 35.

The party argues that it has a right to determine which names should be listed on its presidential primary ballot. Alternatively, it argues that the Secretary of State is inconsistent, because she does not block other constitutionally ineligible candidates from appearing on California ballots. Even though the California Constitution says that legislative candidates must have lived in the district for at least a year before running, she does not enforce that constitutional provision. Also, when individuals who believe that President Obama does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be President and that she should check his qualifications before printing his name on ballots, she takes the position that she doesn’t have the authority to investigate. The Peace & Freedom Party’s lawsuit lost in U.S. District Court on December 11, 2012; the decision does not discuss the inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s position.