When filing for the California primary closes next month, it is expected that there will be independent candidates for at least three of the statewide state offices. It had already been known that Dan Schnur plans to run for Secretary of State. In addition, Orly Taitz plans to run for Attorney General. She had run as a Republican for Secretary of State in 2010, and for U.S. Senate in 2012, but she is now an independent.

Also, Robert C. Newman, of San Bernardino County, plans to run for Governor. He is supported by the Constitution Party. His webpage is newman4governor.org.

On February 19, a U.S. District Court rejected Bernbeck v Gale, 8:13cv-228, a case against Nebraska’s ban on paying initiative circulators on a per-signature basis. The basis was that the same plaintiff had lost in this issue in state court.

However, the decision says that the plaintiff is free to proceed against another law mentioned in the Complaint, the Nebraska county distribution for statewide initiatives. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 1969 that county distribution requirements for statewide petitions are unconstitutional, because counties have widely differing populations.

On November 8, 2013, a federal lawsuit was filed against Oregon’s ban on paying petitioners on the basis of how many signatures they collect. Buehler v Brown, 3:13cv-1990.

An earlier lawsuit against that ban failed to achieve any change in the law. That case was Prete v Bradbury, 438 F 3d 949 (2006). However, in that case, the Ninth Circuit wrote, “To be clear, we do not hold that Measure 26 is facially constitutional. Rather, we hold that because the district court did not clearly err in determining plaintiffs failed to establish that Measure 26 significantly diminishes the pool of potential petition circulators, increases the cost of signature gathering, or increases the invalidity rate of signatures gathered, we cannot conclude that Measure 26 imposes a ‘severe burden’ under the First Amendment.”

Plaintiffs in the new lawsuit expect to submit evidence that the restriction does impose a severe burden, and thus their case is not foreclosed by the 2006 opinion.