Arkansas Ballot Access Case Begins to Progress

Posted on by July 2, 2014
Reply

Back on February 6, 2014, several independent candidates filed a lawsuit against the petition deadline for independent candidates. The case has been inactive, but now U.S. District Court Judge James M. Moody has set a conference on the case for July 15, and a possible trial on July 27. The case is Moore v Martin, eastern district, 4:14cv-65.

The Arkansas petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates is March 3. It had been in May, but the 2013 session of the legislature moved it to March, even though similar independent candidate petition deadlines in Arkansas had been held unconstitutional three times before, in 1974, 1976, and 1988. The 1976 decision was summarily affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arizona Legislature Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Independent Redistricting Commissions May Draw U.S. House District Lines

Posted on by July 2, 2014
Reply

On April 28, 2014, the Arizona Legislature asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 13-1314. The issue is whether Article One of the U.S. Constitution permits states to let independent redistricting commissions draw boundaries for U.S. House districts. Article One, Section Four, says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…”. A 3-judge U.S. District Court had ruled on February 21, 2014, by a 2-1 vote, that the Independent Redistricting Commission is included in “Legislature” because it exercises legislative power.

Here is a copy of the Arizona legislature’s request to the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. Here is a copy of the other side’s brief, explaining why the Court should not hear the case.

In the meantime, another federal case challenges the Arizona U.S. House districts on one-person, one-vote grounds. The 3-judge district court had ruled in favor of the commission on that, and the voters who challenged the district boundaries also intend to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review in a few weeks. That case is Wesley Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Challenge to Alaska Ban on Out-of-State Circulators on Standing

Posted on by July 2, 2014
Reply

On June 24, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Robert Raymond does not have standing to challenge the Alaska ban on out-of-state circulators. Raymond v Fenumiai, 13-35090. Here is the very brief opinion.

Raymond lives in Wisconsin and is a professional petitioner. His Complaint said he wanted to work on Alaska initiatives. But the U.S. District Court, and now the Ninth Circuit, says in order to have standing, he should have mentioned a particular initiative he wants to work on. The Ninth Circuit was 2-1. The dissent, by Judge J. Clifford Wallace, is longer than the decision itself, and says the panel should have remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court so that Raymond could amend his Complaint. The majority decision confines the discussion of standing to a two sentences, “‘He alleged only that he has been active on behalf of Alaska political causes before, and he intends to circulate petitions in Alaska for initiatives, referenda, and recall campaigns if the Alaska laws prohibiting him fro doing so were not enforced.’ Statements of this abstract nature do not confer Article III standing.” The decision will not be published, and it does not indicate which of the two judges in the majority wrote it. Those two judges were Morgan Christen, who formerly was on the Alaska Supreme Court, and Kim Wardlaw.