Florida House Bill 1355 Restricts Who Can Be Nominated by Political Parties for All Offices

Florida HB 1355, passed by the House on April 21, is 157 pages long. Among the changes is a provision that does not permit political parties to nominate anyone for any partisan office (other than president or presidential elector), if that person had been a registered member of another political party at any time during the year before filing to run for office.

The bill makes no exception for new parties. Therefore, a new party, formed in an election year, would not be permitted to have any nominees who had been members of another party for 18 months before the election. This part of the bill, if signed into law, would almost certainly be held unconstitutional. Similar laws in Oklahoma and Nevada were invalidated, as applied to new parties. The Oklahoma case was Crussel v Oklahoma State Election Board, 497 F Supp 646 (1980); the Nevada case was Long v Swackhamer, 538 P 2d 587 (1975). If a law like this had been in effect in 1854, the Republican Party would have been severely handicapped, because a great deal of Republicans elected that year had been Whigs or Democrats or Free Soilers immediately before the Republican Party was formed.

Courts in New Mexico and Colorado have ruled that it is unconstitutional for a state to tell a party that it can’t nominate a non-member. The Colorado case was Colorado Democratic Party v Meyer (1988); the New Mexico case was Woodruff v Herrera (2011).

Americans Elect Qualifies as a Party in Florida

On April 21, Americans Elect submitted the paperwork to qualify as a political party in Florida. This is an action Americans Elect would have been doing in Florida eventually, in any case. However, the filing was done earlier than it would have been otherwise. If HB 1355 is signed into law and Americans Elect (or possibly other parties as well) brings a lawsuit against the new law, it may be legally advantageous that Americans Elect had already been qualified, when the new, drastic ballot access restriction took effect.

Indiana Supreme Court Hears Case on Whether Misdemeanor Incarceration can Injure Voting Rights

On April 21, the Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments in Snyder v King, 94S00-1101. The Court must decide whether a state law is consistent with the Indiana Constitution. The Indiana Constitution authorizes the legislature to cancel voter registration for those incarcerated for “infamous crime”. The legislature feels this gives it the authority to create a law canceling voter registration for anyone incarcerated, even if only for a misdemeanor. The plaintiff had been locked up for battery, a misdemeanor. The plaintiff had then sued in federal court, and the federal court had then asked the Indiana Supreme Court to interpret whether “infamous crime” can include a misdemeanor. Thanks to Election Law@Moritz for this news.

U.S. District Court Holds Oral Argument in Nebraska Lawsuit on Petitioner Residency

On April 21, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon, a Clinton appointee, held oral arguments in Citizens in Charge v Gale, 4:09-cv-3255. This lawsuit challenges the Nebraska law that bars out-of-state petitioners. See this newspaper story, which describes the testimony of Paul Jacob. The lawsuit also challenges a law saying petition sheets must contain a sentence in red ink, saying that the circulator is being paid (if the circulator is indeed being paid). The lawsuit also challenged the county distribution requirement for independent candidates, but this year the legislature repealed the county distribution requirement, so that part of the lawsuit is moot.

Judge Bataillon also has jurisdiction over another lawsuit, Bernbeck v Gale, 4:10-cv-3001, which challenges a Nebraska law that makes it illegal to pay circulators on a per-signature basis. The argument in that lawsuit was held on December 21, 2010, and no opinion has been handed down yet.