Ralph Nader Sets the Record Straight, Rebuts U.S. Attorney who told 9th Circuit that Nader Tried to Get Other Presidential Candidates Off Ballot

Posted on by
4

As noted at this blog on May 4, an Assistant United States Attorney, David A. DeJute, told the 9th circuit on May 2 that Ralph Nader had tried to disqualify other presidential candidates from the ballot in the past. On May 13, an attorney for Ralph Nader filed a letter with the Court, after sending it to Mr. DeJute, pointing out that the statement about Nader is false. Here is the letter. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

The statement had been made at oral argument in Drake v Obama et al, a case in which the American Independent Party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates had sued the California Secretary of State for failing to investigate whether President Obama met the constitutional qualifications.

Constitution Party Makes Preparations to Get 2012 Presidential Nominee on California Ballot

Posted on by
47

The Constitution Party no longer enjoys qualified status in California, so the party is taking steps to make it possible for its 2012 presidential nominee to be on the California general election ballot. Earlier this month, the party sought a ruling from the California Secretary of State on whether out-of-state circulators are permitted, at least for an independent presidential candidate petition.

Although California law bars out-of-state circulators, and even out-of-district circulators, the California Secretary of State already ruled that she would not enforce the laws that restrict circulators for district office from working outside their home district. Also, the 9th circuit ruled in 2008 in an Arizona case that states cannot bar out-of-state circulators, and California is in the 9th circuit.

Also, Gary Odom, national Field Director for the Constitution Party, and a former Californian himself, has called on all Constitution Party activists and members in California to change their voter registration from “American Independent” to “Constitution.” If the Constitution Party could persuade 103,004 Californians to list themselves as Constitution Party members on voter registration forms, it would become ballot-qualified.

The lawsuit in which the faction of the American Independent Party that is loyal to the Constitution Party argues that the Secretary of State has recognized the wrong state party officers is still alive, however.

Commentary on California’s Experience with “Top-Two” in Recent Congressional Election

Posted on by
23

On May 17, California held a special election to fill the vacant U.S. House seat, 36th district. Here is commentary on how the Proposition 14 system worked from Bill Whalen, a Research Fellow at Hoover Institution. Whalen has previously worked as a media consultant for Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Campbell, Pete Wilson, and Richard Riordan, all known as moderate California Republicans.

Also, T.A. Barnes, an Oregon political activist and a Democrat, has this commentary on the recent election at www.blueoregon.

Here is commentary by Jessica Levinson, Director of Political Reform at the Center for Governmental Studies and an Adjunct Professor at Loyola Law School.

Here is a you tube from a California Green Party statewide meeting on May 1, talking about the lawsuits against the top-two system in California and Washington. The attorney for the California lawsuits, Gautam Dutta, is the second speaker. Richard Winger is included also.

Libertarian, Green Parties File Motion for Summary Judgment to Valid Maryland Petitions

Posted on by
3

On May 20, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party filed this Motion for Summary Judgment to obtain a court ruling that they each are qualified parties in Maryland. The case is Libertarian Party of Maryland et al v Maryland State Board of Elections, circuit court, Anne Arundel County, 02-c-11-160371.

State law requires 10,000 signatures for each of these parties to re-qualify for the 2012 and 2014 elections. Elections officials have already identified over 10,000 registered voters on each party’s petition. However, these election officials don’t believe either petition has 10,000 signatures that they are permitted to recognize. The Board of Elections excluded voters whose names were not an exact match (missing middle initials, nicknames, etc.). Also excluded are instances at which a registered voter signed the petition twice, once without the missing middle initial, and once including the missing middle initial. The brief argues that it is not rational to exclude both the hyper-correct signature as well as the technically-incomplete signature. The parties don’t want both signatures to count, but they say certainly one of them should count.

Ninth Circuit Upholds San Francisco’s Variety of Instant Runoff Voting

Posted on by
6

On May 20, the Ninth Circuit upheld San Francisco’s particular type of Instant Runoff Voting. The case is Dudum v Arntz, 10-17198. The opinion is 33 pages. The plaintiffs, San Francisco voters, had filed this lawsuit in 2010. The lawsuit did not challenge the constitutionality of Instant Runoff Voting in general. Rather, it challenged San Francisco’s version, which limits each voter to ranking only three candidates. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

The attorneys for the voters who challenged the San Francisco system are the same attorneys who represent former California Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado in the lawsuits that challenge certain aspects of California’s top-two system. Maldonado intervened in those lawsuits, Field v Bowen and Chamness v Bowen, to defend the parts of California’s top-two system that do not treat all candidates equally relative to party labels, and which permit write-in space on run-off ballots but do not allow those write-ins to be counted. It is somewhat ironic that the same attorneys who attacked San Francisco’s version of IRV on the grounds that it fails to “count” the votes of all voters, are defending the top-two law that specifically says some votes can not be counted.