U.S. District Court Hears Libertarian Case on Counting Write-in Votes for Bob Barr in District of Columbia

Posted on by
3

On March 4, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., heard one hour and forty minutes of oral argument in Libertarian Party v District of Columbia Board of Elections, 09-cv-1676. The case had been filed in 2009, after it became apparent that the District of Columbia Board of Elections would not tally the number of write-in votes cast for Bob Barr in the November 2008 election. Barr was a declared write-in presidential candidate, and had filed a slate of candidates for presidential elector, in accordance with the Board’s own procedures for write-in presidential candidates. Barr was the only declared write-in presidential candidate in the District in 2008.

Attorneys for the Board suggested that it would be very difficult to count the write-ins. But, they also said that if Barr and the Libertarian Party wanted to know how many write-ins Barr got, the party could have filed a Freedom of Information Act request, or else could have requested and paid for a recount. The latter ideas seems to counter their first argument. During the course of the argument, the famous U.S. Supreme Court opinion Bush v Gore was mentioned. Bush v Gore said that the Constitution requires elections officials to treat all voters equally.

Reform Party of Mississippi Plagued by Two Factions, Each Claiming to be Proper Party Officers

Posted on by
10

The Reform Party of Mississippi is split into two factions, each with its own set of state officers. In Mississippi, candidates for public partisan office file with their parties, not with election officials. Seven candidates associated with one faction filed in the party’s primary for statewide office with their faction’s officers. Four candidates associated with the other faction filed for statewide office with their faction’s officers.

One might think a rational way of settling the dispute would be to have a contested primary, but that will not happen. Instead, the Secretary of State will investigate which set of state officers is the legitimate set, and then the candidates who filed with those officers will be on the ballot, and the others won’t. Mississippi elects eight statewide state officers in 2011, including Governor.

Oklahoma Senate Passes Distribution Requirement for Initiative Petitions

Posted on by
3

On March 3, the Oklahoma Senate passed SJR 37, which would make it more difficult for initiatives to get on the ballot. The bill adds a U.S. House district distribution requirement. Current law requires an initiative that changes an ordinary law to get the signatures of 8% of the last gubernatorial vote. The bill would provide that the petition would need 8% in each of the five districts. This is a proposed Constitutional change, and if it passes the House as well, would go on the ballot in November 2012. The vote in the Senate was 28-15. Thanks to Richard Prawdzienski for this news.

In the meantime, the bill to permit one year to gather initiative signatures, HB 1718, has not made any headway. Current law requires that all the signatures on an initiative be gathered in 90 days. Last year the legislature passed a bill expanding the petitioning period to one year, but the Governor vetoed it.

Ninth Circuit Sets Briefing Schedule in Case Against Washington State Top-Two System

Posted on by
4

The 9th circuit has set a briefing schedule in Washington State Republican Party v Washington State Grange, 11-35122. The briefs of the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties are due May 23. The responses of the Grange and the state are due June 20. The parties’ rebuttal briefs are due July 4. This is the case that challenges Washington state’s top-two system, which has been in effect since 2008.

In the 9th circuit, all three issues will be aired: (1) whether party labels on the ballot lead voters to believe that the candidates with those labels represent those parties; (2) whether voters’ rights are injured by a general election ballot that includes only the two most popular candidates in any particular race; (3) whether the Libertarian Party’s trademark of its own name is violated by the law allowing any person to use the party’s name on the ballot.