The Washington Post’s ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton, analyzes his newspaper’s coverage of this year’s minor party presidential nominees. He concludes that the candidates deserve more coverage than they have received.
2
On October 18, Gary Johnson and his campaign sued the Commission on Presidential Debates, charging that he is being illegally kept out of the CPD debates because he meets the requirements. The Commission on Presidential Debates has kept Johnson out of the debates because the Commission does not believe that Gary Johnson meets the 15% poll rule. However, the rule does not say that the poll must include any particular set of candidates.
The Johnson campaign, during late September and early October, commissioned five national polls in which respondents were asked if they prefer President Obama or Gary Johnson. In all five polls, Gary Johnson easily exceeded 15%. The specific results were: (1) Gravis Marketing, Obama 45%, Johnson 34%, other responses 21%; (2) NSON, Obama 54%, Johnson 23%, other responses 23%; (3) Research Now, Obama 52%, Johnson 26%, other responses 22%; (4) Toluna, Obama 54%, Johnson 46%; (5) uSamp, Obama 63%, Johnson 37%.
The CPD rules just say that the candidate must be at or above 15%, when five different national polls are averaged together. Under the literal language of the CPD rules, Johnson qualifies. The case is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, U.S. District Court, 1:12-cv-1711. Here is the Complaint. Thanks to UncoveredPolitics for the link.
On October 19, an appeal was filed in Citizen Center v Gessler, the case over whether Colorado should be prohibited from printing individual bar codes on ballots. The plaintiffs argue that the bar codes make it possible for employees of the election office to see how they voted. The U.S. District Court had ruled on September 22 that nothing in the U.S Constitution requires a secret ballot. The case will now be heard by the 10th circuit, case no. 12-1414.
On December 4, 2012, a U.S. District Court in Brooklyn will hear oral arguments in Credico v New York State Board of Elections. The hearing will be at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 13B. The issue is the constitutionality of a New York law that says two unqualified parties who jointly nominate the same candidate cannot both appear on the ballot for that race. Instead the minor party candidate must choose which party line he or she wishes to appear on. Yet New York does permit two qualified parties to jointly nominate the same candidate, and let the candidate appear on the ballot twice, so that voters can choose which label they prefer to support. This is a case that was filed in 2010.
On February 25, 2013, a U.S. District Court in Colorado will hear Riddle v Hickenlooper. This is the case over the constitutionality of a state law that says individuals may donate twice as much money to a candidate for the legislature who is nominated by primary than to a candidate for the legislature who is nominated by convention or petition. The lead plaintiff, Joelle Riddle, wants to donate $400 to an independent candidate for the legislature, Kathleen Curry. But the state law only permits her to donate $200. Yet if Riddle wanted to donate to a Republican or a Democrat who is running for the same seat, Riddle could donate $400. This case was also filed in 2010.
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow will hear oral arguments over whether the six plaintiffs who challenged two particular aspects of the top-two law should be required to pay almost $250,000 in attorneys fees to the California Independent Voters Project, and Californians for an Open Primary, the groups who intervened in support of California’s top-two law. Judge Karnow had awarded the fees on August 1, and is being asked to reconsider that decision. It had been thought that the reconsideration hearing would be before a different judge and would be on Monday, August 22, but on August 19, the other judge said the reconsideration decision belongs to Judge Karnow. Anyone in the San Francisco area who is interested in this matter, which affects me and five of my friends, is urged to attend. The hearing is at 400 McAllister, at the corner of Polk and McAllister, at 9:30 a.m.
On October 18, the California Independent Voters Network conducted an on-line debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Here is the transcript. The moderator was Steve Peace.
One of the ironies of CAIVN sponsoring this debate is that CAIVN works very hard to implement top-two systems. If any state, or the nation, used the top-two system for presidential elections, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein couldn’t be running for President in the general election season. Maybe this debate marks a turning point for Steve Peace and CAIVN in their attitude toward top-two systems.