This week, a U.S. District Court in North Carolina is conducting a trial in the cases filed by the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, over various election laws passed in North Carolina last year that make it more difficult for individuals to vote. See this story of the dramatic testimony of Tuesday, July 8. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On July 9, a Wall Street Journal/Channel 4 poll was released for the New York gubernatorial race. It shows Green Party nominee Howie Hawkins at 6%. See it here. If the actual results in November are even close to what the poll shows, the Green Party almost surely would then be granted the third line on the ballot in 2016 and 2018, ahead of the Conservative, Working Families, and Independence Parties. That would be the first time since 1936 in which a party that doesn’t cross-endorse Democratic and Republican Parties nominees enjoyed the third line on New York ballots. The Socialist Party lost the third line in November 1936, having had it since 1918. Thanks to Michael for the link.
On July 9, the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 that the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties do have standing to challenge the unique Pennsylvania system that puts petitioning groups at risk of tens of thousands of dollars if they submit a petition that is later held to lack enough valid signatures. Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Aichele, 13-1952.
The decision is by Judge Kent Jordan, a Bush Jr. appointee, and is co-signed by Judge Jane Roth, a Bush Sr. appointee. The dissent is by Judge Thomas Ambro, a Clinton appointee. The majority cleared away all procedural barriers to the case, and sent it back to the U.S. District Court for a ruling on whether the system is unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court had refused to decide if the challenge system is unconstitutional, because the U.S. District Court felt the plaintiffs lack standing.
The majority says, “It would be a sad irony indeed if the state that prides itself on being the cradle of American liberty had unlawfully restrictive ballot access laws.” The oral argument in this case had been on March 6, 2014. After the oral argument, and on June 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Susan B. Anthony List v Driehaus that the Sixth Circuit had been too restrictive on standing in that Ohio election law case. Obviously the Susan B. Anthony decision helped the plaintiffs in this Pennsylvania case, and the Third Circuit quotes the Susan B. Anthony decision.
UPDATE: here is a short AP story about the decision. The AP uses the word “fine”, but that is not correct. The AP story should say “court costs.”
Nicholas Di Ioria, Republican nominee for U.S. House in New York’s 12th district, hopes to be the subject of a reality TV show. The show would not air until after the election. Nevertheless, it is not certain that the Federal Election Commission will let him proceed. See this story. The 12th district consists of the east side of Manhattan, plus part of Queens. In 2012, Mitt Romney only received 22% of the vote in this district. The show’s producers are interested in a reality show for a candidate who is assumed to have no chance of winning.
This article examines the complicated legal issues, and practical issues, that are arising from the recount that is about to start in California for the Controller’s race, a statewide race.
