Three Parties Will Nominate Someone for Special South Carolina U.S. House Race

South Carolina holds a special election to fill a vacant U.S. House seat, First district, on May 7. Three parties are nominating someone for that election. The Green Party will use a nominating convention on March 9 to choose either Eugene Platt or Larry Carter Center. The Democrats and the Republicans will choose their nominees by primary on March 19. With 16 Republicans running, it is likely the Republicans will also need a run-off primary, on April 2. Overseas and military absentee voters will use primary ballots that let them vote for several candidates and assign a ranking. Thanks to Eugene Platt for this news.

Ninth Circuit Oral Argument in California Case on Discriminatory Ballot Labels

On February 13, the Ninth Circuit will hear Chamness v Maldonado, 11-56303, in Pasadena, California. This is the lawsuit that challenges California’s ban on the ballot label “independent” in elections for Congress and partisan state office. California does not ban “independent” for presidential independent candidates, but the implementing language for the top-two system oddly does ban that word for other office.

The State Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and Minnesota have both ruled in the past that “independent” is such an important term for independent candidates, that states cannot ban it from appearing on the ballot. Nevertheless, the U.S. District Court in 2011 had upheld the law.

The hearing will be at the Courthouse at 125 South Grand Avenue, in a residential part of western Pasadena. The judges will be Marsha Berzon, Paul Watford, and James Carr, a visiting U.S. District Court Judge from Ohio.

Ninth Circuit to Hear Nevada “None of These Candidates” Case on March 11

The Ninth Circuit will hear Townley v State of Nevada, 12-16881, on March 11 in San Francisco. This is the case that challenges the Nevada state law that puts “none of these candidates” on the ballot for statewide office, yet says even if “none of these candidates” wins, it has no effect. The challengers say that the existing law discriminates against voters who choose “none of these candidates”, because even if their choice wins, nothing happens.