U.S. District Court Upholds North Carolina’s May Petition Deadline for Newly-Qualifying Parties

On March 1, U.S. District Court Judge Graham Mullen upheld North Carolina’s mid-May petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties, in a 12-page opinion in North Carolina Constitution Party v Bartlett, 3:12cv-192, western district. Even though there have been 51 court opinions striking down early deadlines, Judge Mullen managed to write an opinion that mentions only one of them, Anderson v Celebrezze. And he only cited Anderson on the question of what level of scrutiny to apply, and did not discuss the actual holding in that decision, which was a U.S. Supreme Court opinion that said early petition deadlines are unconstitutional for both minor parties and independent candidates, at least as applied to presidential elections.

The opinion says the May petition deadline does not injure the plaintiffs, the Constitution Party and the Green Party, because even if they had more time, they probably couldn’t complete the petition. This conclusion ignores the many precedents that say that plaintiff political parties and independent candidates do have standing to challenge early petition deadlines, regardless of whether they could complete the petition if they had more time or not. These precedents even include a federal North Carolina precedent, Greaves v North Carolina State Board of Elections, 508 F.Supp. 78, in which North Carolina’s April petition deadline for independent candidates was declared unconstitutional even though the plaintiff, Percy Greaves, the American Party presidential candidate in 1980, had not made any effort to petition in North Carolina and did not claim that he could have qualified if the deadline had been later.

The decision rests almost entirely on the point that North Carolina lets petitioning groups start to petition as early as they wish. However, four times, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down early petition deadlines, or remanded the case so that it was later declared unconstitutional, and in all four instances, the state permitted petitions to circulate as early as the group or candidate wished. In Anderson v Celebrezze, Ohio had no limit on when an independent presidential petition could start to circulate. In Mandel v Bradley, similarly, Maryland did not have any law on how soon a candidate or a party could circulate a petition. In Williams v Rhodes, the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a too-early petition deadline, Ohio had no limit on when a newly-qualifying party could start to circulate. In 1977 the U.S. Supreme Court also summarily affirmed a decision striking down an April deadline for independent candidates in Arkansas (Lendall v Jernigan), and Arkansas at the time did not have any law on how soon a candidate could begin to circulate a petition.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mandel v Bradley says that an early petition deadline is probably unconstitutional if the historical record shows that the petition is seldom successfully completed. In North Carolina, only once in the past ten years has any petition for a newly-qualifying political party succeeded; that was the Libertarian petition of 2008. Yet Judge Mullen did not even mention Mandel v Bradley. The Constitution and Green Parties will appeal.

Judge Mullen wrote the decision in great haste. The hearing was February 27, but the judge only permitted 15 minutes for the entire hearing. He then released the opinion two days later.

Kansas Bill Advances, Would Prohibit Voters from Switching Parties During Two Months Before Primaries

On March 1, the Kansas House passed HB 2210 by a vote of 72-49. It says that voters can’t change parties during the period between early June and the August primary. The Republican House majority felt that in 2012, some Democratic voters were re-registering into the Republican Party in order to alter the outcome of various Republican races. See this story.

In somewhat related news, on February 23, the Kansas Democratic Party State Committee voted that independent voters will no longer be permitted to vote in Democratic primaries. Under the U.S. Supreme Court decision Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, parties make the decision themselves on whether to let independent voters vote in their primaries. The Kansas Republican Party has not permitted independents to vote in Republican primaries for many years, but Kansas Democrats had been letting independents vote in Democratic primaries. The party says it doesn’t feel it is appropriate for non-members to be helping choose party officers. Kansas is one of the states in which primary voters choose party officers as well as nominees for public office.

Massachusetts Bills to Move Primaries to Earlier Date

Massachusetts Representative James J. Dwyer (D-Woburn) has introduced two bills for earlier primaries. Currently, Massachusetts has a presidential primary in March, and a primary for all other office in September.

HB 574 would move the non-presidential primary from September to June, but would not change the date of the presidential primary. HB 575 would move both primaries to June.

Both bills irrationally move the petition deadlines for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, to dates that have already been held unconstitutional in Massachusetts and in the U.S. Supreme Court. HB 574 moves that petition independent deadline to from July to March, except that presidential petitions would move from July to June. HB 575 is even worse, and moves all independent petition deadlines, even for President, to January. When one reads these bills, it helps to understand that in Massachusetts, the deadline for submitting the signatures to the Secretary of State is four weeks later than the deadline to submit the signatures to the town clerks. So when the bills talk about the deadline for signatures to be given to the Secretary of State, that really means the signatures are due a month earlier than the month mentioned in the bills.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v Celebrezze that Ohio’s March 20 deadline for independent presidential candidates is too early, so obviously a January deadline would be void. A Massachusetts state court in 1985 invalidated the old Massachusetts May deadline, in Serrette v Connolly. Thanks to Josh Putnam for the news about the bills.

Texas Bill to Apportion Presidential Elector by Share of Popular Vote Within State

Texas Representative Chris Turner (D-Arlington) has introduced HB 2007. It says that presidential electors in Texas will be chosen according to the proportion of popular votes that each presidential candidate receives in Texas. For example, if his bill had been law in 1992, Ross Perot would have received 7 electoral votes, George H. W. Bush would have received 13, and Bill Clinton would have received 12. Actually, of course, President Bush received all 32 electoral votes.

The surprise in HB 2007 is that it only takes effect if at least one other state has the same method for choosing electors. Representative Turner obviously introduced this bill because he knows that there is some chance that the Republican majority in the Pennsylvania legislature may pass a similar bill. Of course, it is extremely unlikely that the Republican majority in the Texas legislature will ever pass HB 2007. Thanks to Jim Riley for news of HB 2007.