Sixth Circuit Expedites Libertarian Primary Ballot Access Case

Posted on by March 21, 2014
Reply

On March 21, the Sixth Circuit agreed to expedite Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted. All the briefs will be in by April 15. As reported in an earlier blog post today, the fact that some primary ballots will have been printed by then will not injure the Libertarian candidates. If they win in the Sixth Circuit in late April, their names can be added to the ballots in the counties that use electronic voting machines, because that just involves reconfiguring the machines, rather than printing paper ballots. Because the three Libertarian Party candidates are each unopposed for the party’s nomination, their vote total doesn’t matter; they just each need one vote in order to be nominated.

Constitution Party has Contested Primary in One Idaho Legislative District

Posted on by March 21, 2014
Reply

Except for newly-qualifying parties, Idaho technically provides for a primary for all ballot-qualified parties. However, no primary is held when only one candidate files in any particular party’s primary for any particular office.

But, there will be a Constitution Party primary ballot printed up for the May 20, 2014 primary in the First Legislative district. That is because two candidates filed for the party’s nomination for State Senate. They are Christian Fioravanti and Jack Mervin. As far as is known, this is the first primary held for any party, other than the Republican and Democratic Parties, in Idaho, in decades. See this story.

The Constitution Party had the option late last year to notify the state that it wants to open its primary to independent voters, a step the Democratic Party took. But the Constitution Party did not exercise its option to tell the state that it wants independents to be able to vote in its primary, so the Constitution nomination will be settled by the party’s registered voters who live in that district.

Newark Star-Ledger Story About New Jersey Lawsuit to Let Independents Vote in Primaries Without Joining a Party

Posted on by March 21, 2014
Reply

The Newark Star-Ledger has this story about Balsam v Guadagno, the federal lawsuit filed on March 5 on behalf of some voters who want to vote in party primaries but who don’t want to join those parties, not even for one day.

New Jersey lets independent voters vote in partisan primaries, but if they do, they are then entered on the voter registration records as members of the party whose primary ballot they chose. They are free to fill out a new voter registration form, regaining independent status, as soon as they have voted in the primary.

Ironically, independent voters in New Jersey have more choices on primary day than members of qualified parties. On primary day, registered party members can only choose the primary ballot of the party they are registered with; they can’t change party affiliation on primary day.

Alabama Supreme Court Rules 7-2 that Secretary of State Has No Duty to Examine Constitutional Qualifications of Presidential Candidates

Posted on by March 21, 2014
Reply

On March 21, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Alabama Secretary of State has no duty to examine the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates. McInnish and Goode v Bennett, 1120465. Here is the Opinion.

The case originated in state court on October 11, 2012. It was filed by individuals who asserted that the Secretary of State should not print any presidential candidate on a primary or general election ballot without first determining if the candidate meets the constitutional qualifications. The court majority refused to issue an opinion. However, two justices wrote separately to say explain why they believe the plaintiffs should not prevail. Justice Michael F. Bolin wrote a 25-page opinion, saying that nothing in Alabama law requires the Secretary of State to investigate presidential qualifications. That opinion also says the plaintiffs should have filed the case much earlier. Justice Tommy Bryan wrote a two-page opinion agreeing with Justice Bolin.

Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote a 44-page dissent, which expresses the opinion that the Secretary of State took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that oath implies that, as chief election officer, she had a responsibility to examine the qualifications of all presidential candidates. Justice Tom Parker wrote a 3-page dissent, agreeing with Moore, except that the Secretary’s duty is only to examine qualifications after a challenge has been filed.

All justices seemed to agree that the plaintiffs had standing. That is because one of the plaintiffs is Virgil Goode, who was on the Alabama general election ballot as an independent presidential candidate. Generally, courts find that candidates have standing to challenge the qualifications of their opponents. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

Colorado Bill to Revise Recall Election Law Contradictions

Posted on by April 9, 2020
Reply

Some Colorado Democratic Senators have introduced SB 158, to deal with election law problems uncovered in last year’s legislative recall elections. See this story. The Colorado Supreme Court had ruled that one law, requiring voters to vote on whether the officer should be recalled if they wish to vote on who should replace the recalled officer (if the recall succeeds), is unconstitutional. Therefore, SB 158 deletes that requirement. That part of the bill is not controversial.

The other part of the bill tries to get around that fact that the State Constitution says candidates can file to be on a recall ballot only ten days before the recall election is to be held. The bill does not attempt to revise the State Constitution; such a move would require a proposed Constitutional revision, and the voters would need to approve it. Instead, the bill defines “election day” to be the day the recall election was called.