Lower Florida State Court Keeps Three State Supreme Court Justices on Ballot

Posted on by August 8, 2012
Reply

On August 8, a Leon County, Florida, circuit court rejected a lawsuit that had been filed to keep three State Supreme Court Justices off the retention ballot. In Florida, justices of the Supreme Court must actually file to appear on the ballot, even though they don’t run in candidate elections; instead their names are listed on the ballot and voters vote on whether to retain them.

The lawsuit had been filed by voters who charged that the ballot access applications were flawed. The law requires such applications to be notarized. The justices filed at the last minute, and in their rush, they had their applications notarized by employees of the Supreme Court. A law says court employees can’t work for a candidate on government time. But the court ruled that, whatever the merits of that argument, the plaintiffs lack standing. See this story. It would be a rare lower court judge who would rule that three members of that state’s Supreme Court justices must be removed from the ballot.

Libertarians Appear to be Only Party to Successfully Petition for President in Connecticut this Year

Posted on by August 8, 2012
18

The Connecticut petition deadline for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, is August 8. It appears that the only presidential petition likely to succeed in Connecticut is the Libertarian Party petition. The state requires 7,500 valid signatures. The Green Party made a valiant attempt, but seems to only have 7,000 signatures in hand.

The FEC has still not approved the Jill Stein matching funds application, although that approval is expected soon. The Independent Party of Connecticut is ballot-qualified for president, and has the freedom to nominate a presidential candidate. There is some indication that the Independent Party of Connecticut is leaning toward nominating Rocky Anderson.

The Constitution Party did not attempt a Connecticut petition. Petitioning in all the New England states is intrinsically more burdensome than it is in the remainder of the country. The New England states of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut are the only states that require petitions to be transported to various town clerks, then collected, then taken to the Secretary of State’s office. Because federal law requires all state election offices to have their own statewide voter registration list, there is no rational reason for these cumbersome procedures to survive.

Although the South has the nation’s worst ballot access laws, New England is the second-worst region for ballot access. Massachusetts and Maine have the nation’s most restrictive laws on how a candidate gets on the primary ballot of a small ballot-qualified party. Maine has the nation’s most burdensome procedure for a new party to qualify by petition (the requirement is 5% of the last vote cast, and no one who is a registered member of a qualified party may sign). Vermont is tied for having the nation’s earliest petition deadline for independent presidential candidates. New Hampshire is the only state that requires an unqualified party to notify the state of its presidential nominee in June. Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire don’t permit presidential stand-ins on petitions. Many of these laws should have long ago been held unconstitutional, but the federal judges in the First Circuit seem markedly biased against minor parties.

U.S. District Court Judge Enjoins Florida Law that Prohibited Political Contributions from Minors Greater than $100

Posted on by August 8, 2012
4

On August 7, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen M. Williams, an Obama appointee, enjoined enforcement of a Florida law that makes it a crime for anyone under the age of 18 to contribute more than $100 to a candidate or a political party, or any other political committee that supports candidates. Here is the opinion in Towbin v Antonacci, southern district, 12-80069.

The plaintiff, Julie Towbin, is a 17-year-old former congressional page. She wanted to buy a ticket to a Democratic Party event, but the price of the ticket was $150. Election officials warned her that she would be prosecuted if she bought the ticket, so she missed the event, but the ACLU represented her, and now the restriction cannot be enforced, and will probably soon be held unconstitutional. The state law only covered contributions for state and local office; states don’t have the power to write campaign finance laws for federal office.

The state argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff will soon be 18, and the state also argued that since she didn’t actually buy the ticket, she doesn’t have standing. The judge rejected those arguments. According to the decision, other states that have lower contribution limits for minors than for adults are Connecticut, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. Thanks to Political Activity Law for the link.

Georgia Attorney General Hasn’t Responded to Request for Rehearing in Ballot Access Case

Posted on by August 8, 2012
1

Fifteen days ago, the Georgia Green Party and the Georgia Constitution Party asked for reconsideration in the ballot access case. The Georgia Attorney General has not responded. It is somewhat unusual for a request for reconsideration to be filed, and to elicit no response from the other side.

The case challenges the Georgia ballot access laws for President, which are so stringent, no one has successfully petitioned for President in Georgia since 2000. The U.S. District Court had dismissed the case on the grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1971, Jenness v Fortson, means those procedures are constitutional. But the parties had then asked for reconsideration, pointing out that Jenness v Fortson did not concern presidential ballot access, and also that more recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the 11th circuit, had both said presidential ballot access is entitled to more protection than ballot access for other office. Georgia is in the 11th circuit.

Trial Date Set in California Lawsuit over Deadline for Newly-Qualifying Parties

Posted on by August 8, 2012
1

U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson has scheduled a trial for October 16, at 9 a.m., in California Justice Committee v Bowen, central district, 2:12cv3956. This is the case over the constitutionality of California’s January petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. The judge had already enjoined this deadline, in May 2012, on the basis that the deadline is probably unconstitutional. The case had been filed in May by the Justice Party and the Constitution Party.