On October 16, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay the decision of the Sixth Circuit in Obama for America v Husted. The Sixth Circuit had said that since Ohio lets members of the military who are in the U.S. vote early on the weekend before the election, the state must let all voters vote early on the same weekend. It is somewhat likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will accept this case for full review. The October 16 action is not a decision on the merits, but just says that for this upcoming election, the early voting will proceed.
Postings have been sparse here because I have been on vacation, but I am home now.
This lengthy story about Barbara Howe, Libertarian Party nominee for Governor of North Carolina, includes the fact that she has already campaigned in 90 of North Carolina’s 100 counties.
The New York Times of October 15 has this story, which is mostly about Gary Johnson and partly about Virgil Goode. One deficiency in the story is that it doesn’t explain that Gary Johnson probably draws many votes from voters who would otherwise vote for President Obama. Another deficiency is that it doesn’t mention Jill Stein, even though she is on the ballot in more states than Virgil Goode.
And, even though the story says Gary Johnson doesn’t mind being called a “spoiler”, the New York Times ought not to use that word. It is demeaning to voters. No one forces any voter to vote for a minor party candidate. Journalists who label minor party nominees “spoilers”, whether they are conscious of it or not, are implicitly endorsing the idea that voters are passive automatons who can’t think for themselves and ought to have fewer choices so they don’t “spoil” the “legitimate” outcomes. In no other country would the mainstream press even hint that the existence of one party on the ballot is somehow illegitimate because its existence might affect the outcome. Other nations recognize that there are more than two points of view among political ideas and assume that every substantial point of view will be represented by a political party.
On October 15, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear Arizona v InterTribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 11-71. This is the case over whether Arizona can require extra information from newly-registering voters when they use the federal Voter Registration form. Arizona state law says that when an individual uses the federal voter registration form, extra information, mandated only by the state, must be included.
The Ninth Circuit had ruled that when Congress passed the bill for a federal voter registration form in 1993, Congress felt the questions on the federal form are sufficient. The federal form requires applicants to say under penalty of perjury that the individual is a citizen. But Arizona is not satisfied with that and wants copies of naturalization certificates, or drivers license number information or other information concerning birthplace. The case was called Gonzalez v Arizona when it was in the 9th circuit. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was acting as a visiting Ninth Circuit judge and was part of the original 9th circuit panel that ruled against the state. This is an important case for other election law issues as well, because it tests the “Election Clause”, the part of Article One that says states may write election laws for Congress, but Congress can override them when it wishes.
