Pete Peterson, the only announced Republican running for Secretary of State of California, has this interesting column at Fox and Hounds, about independent voters.
Reply
The Seventh Circuit will hear Stone v Board of Election Commissioners, 13-2733, on February 19, Wednesday, at 10 a.m. in Chicago. This is the case that challenges the law requiring candidates for non-partisan citywide office in Chicago to submit 12,500 valid signatures. The plaintiff argues that a candidate running in a major party primary only needs 5,000 signatures to run for statewide office. He also argues that no other large city requires nearly that many signatures to get on the ballot for any city office.
Virginia holds a special State Senate election on January 21. There are three candidates on the ballot: Democrat Jennifer Wexton, independent Joe T. May, and Republican John Whitbeck. The Washington Post has endorsed Wexton, but the editorial says the only two “serious” candidates in the race are the independent candidate and the Democrat. The editorial says the Republican should not be considered a “serious” candidate.
The most obscure part of the federal Voting Rights Act is Section 3, which says that if a jurisdiction persistently demonstrates a disregard of voting rights for ethnic and racial minorities, it is subject to pre-clearance from the U.S. Justice Department. This section applies to the entire nation, but has almost never been used, because between 1965 and 2013, such jurisdictions were virtually always also required to obtain pre-clearance under Section 5.
On January 13, 2014, a U.S. District Court in Alabama used Section 3 to require the city of Evergreen to obtain approval from the Justice Department, if it makes changes to the voting rolls and also if it makes redistricting changes in its city council elections. The city had been placed under Section 5 in 2012. But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made enforcement of Section 5 impossible, because the Court invalidated Section 4, which is linked to Section 5 and contains the formula to determine which parts of the nation are under Section 5.
The decision is Allen v City of Evergreen, southern district, 13-0107. Here is a newspaper story about the case.
Alabama held a special U.S. House election on December 17, 2013, for the First District. Only two candidates were on the ballot: Republican nominee Bradley Byrne and Democratic nominee Burton LeFlore. The total vote cast was only 51,406 votes, including miscellaneous write-ins.
The only independent candidate who petitioned to be on the ballot, James Hall, had turned in almost 3,000 signatures by the September deadline, and a few hundred more afterwards. Despite a showing of support that exceeds 6% of the total vote cast in that election, he was barred from the ballot because the state demanded almost 6,000 valid signatures. He had sued, arguing that the petition burden should be lowered due to the limited time allowed for collecting signatures, but the federal courts refused to put him on the ballot.
The state insisted that Hall be barred from the ballot, partly on the grounds that the overseas absentee ballots had already been printed and mailed. Hall said he waived his right to be on those ballots. According to the state, only 28 overseas absentee ballots were even returned for this election.
Hall’s lawsuit is still not over, and he hopes to win declaratory relief that Alabama must, in future special elections, either reduce the petition requirement or permit a later deadline. The state is arguing that his lawsuit is moot because the election is over, but the U.S. Supreme Court has said that constitutional ballot access lawsuits are not moot just because the election is over.