Ballot Access News July 1, 2014 Print Edition

Posted on by July 31, 2014
Reply

Ballot Access News
July 1, 2014 – Volume 30, Number 2

This issue was printed on lavender paper.

Table of Contents

  1. RHODE ISLAND REPEALS STRAIGHT-TICKET DEVICE
  2. CALIFORNIA BALLOT ACCESS BILL ADVANCES
  3. ACLU TAKES GEORGIA ACCESS LAWSUIT
  4. PENNSYLVANIA SUED OVER PETITIONER RESIDENCY
  5. HIGH COURT DECISION HELPS WITH STANDING
  6. D.C. ORDERED TO LET VOTERS ELECT ATTORNEY GENERAL
  7. NINTH CIRCUIT CUTS DISCLOSURE ON PETITION SHEETS
  8. OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS
  9. COMPARING ACCESS FOR OFFICE OTHER THAN PRESIDENT
  10. MINOR PARTY MEMBERS WHO RAN IN 2014 CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO PRIMARIES WITH AT LEAST TWO MAJOR PARTY OPPONENTS
  11. 2014 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE
  12. “NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES” WINS NEVADA GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARY
  13. EX-LEGISLATOR BECOMES GREEN NOMINEE FOR MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL
  14. NORTH DAKOTA LIBERTARIANS GAIN PRIMARY VOTERS
  15. FIRST INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA
  16. BALLOTPEDIA
  17. GREEN PARTY SUPERVISOR RE-ELECTED
  18. LIBERTARIAN PARTY MOVES INTO HEADQUARTERS THAT IS OWNS
  19. SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

U.S. Supreme Court Asks for Response in Case Challenging Florida Ban on Judicial Candidates Asking for Campaign Funds

Posted on by July 30, 2014
Reply

The Florida Bar Association prohibits candidates in judicial elections from asking anyone to make a campaign contribution. In 2009, Lanell Williams-Yulee sent a mass e-mail, asking for campaign contributions, to thousands of voters in her district. The Bar fined her $1,800 and reprimanded her, and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the Bar’s actions.

She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on June 17, 2014. On July 24, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the Florida Bar Association to respond. The Bar Association had earlier told the U.S. Supreme Court it didn’t intend to file a response, but now, of course, the Bar will do so. Generally, when the U.S. Supreme Court asks for a response, there is a one-in-three chance that the Court will eventually take the case.

New Mexico Secretary of State Won’t Defend Closed Primary in Court, so Attorney General Asks to Intervene

Posted on by July 30, 2014
Reply

On July 30, New Mexico Attorney General Gary King asked the Bernalillo District Court that is hearing Crum v Duran to let him intervene in the case. The lawsuit, filed by some independent voters, says that the New Mexico Constitution requires that independent voters be allowed to vote in partisan primaries. The Secretary of State, Dianna Duran, has chosen not to defend the law, and she is the Defendant. Therefore, unless the Attorney General is allowed to intervene, there will be no one to defend the state law that says only party members may vote in party primaries.

Anonymous Group Publishes Names and Address of Texas Petition Signers on Internet

Posted on by July 30, 2014
Reply

An anonymous group has posted the names and addresses of all Houston, Texas residents who signed a referendum petition. The referendum would repeal an anti-discrimination city ordinance that is intended to protect anyone from being fired for sexual orientation. The group that posted the signatures says it believes in public disclosure. However, as this article points out, the people who posted the names are themselves keeping their identity a secret. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

New Jersey Independent Congressional Candidate Not Allowed to Pursue Ballot Access Lawsuit Without Paying $3,500 for Transcript

Posted on by July 30, 2014
Reply

Ed Forchion, an independent candidate for U.S. House in New Jersey’s 3rd district, was ruled off the ballot after his petition was challenged. He needed 100 valid signatures. He submitted 200. But his petition was challenged, and election administrators determined that he had only 99 valid signatures. He appealed to Superior Court in June, but was told that he must go to the State Appeals Court.

However, the State Appeals Court won’t hear his case unless he pays $3,500 for a transcript of the proceedings before election officials. See this story.

Forchion says that he should be on the ballot because: (1) he does have 100 valid signatures; (2) if he doesn’t, it is because election officials gave him a map of the district that had errors in it; (3) regardless of all that, the law says challenges are due four days after the petition is submitted, but the Democratic Party official who challenged his petition didn’t object until six days; (4) furthermore the challenge was faxed, and that is not a permissible means for a challenge to be filed.