Republican Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia is retiring, so his 10th district seat is open this year. The Republican Party’s 10th Congressional District Committee will decide on January 23 whether to nominate someone this year by convention or by primary. See this story.
Oklahoma State Senator Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) has introduced SB 1238. It provides that each U.S. House district would elect its own presidential elector. Nebraska and Maine currently use that system. Thanks to Richard Prawdzienski for this news.
As noted in an earlier post, on Friday, January 10, 2014, the government of Ohio appealed the January 7 order that kept Ohio’s minor parties on the ballot for the 2014 election. When Ohio filed its notice of appeal, it also asked that the Sixth Circuit expedite the appeal. The state proposed a briefing schedule that would be complete by January 24.
In response, the minor parties pointed out that the Ohio government did not request a stay of the January 7 order. If the government had requested a stay, either the U.S. District Court or the Sixth Circuit would have responded very quickly, and would either have denied the stay, or granted it. But because no stay was requested, the minor party candidates are now in the uncomfortable position of not knowing whether to finish their ongoing petitions to get on their own party’s primary ballots. If the Sixth Circuit reverses the U.S. District Court, all the minor party primaries would be cancelled, and all the primary petitioning work would have been wasted.
These petitions are not easy; statewide candidates need 500 signatures and voters who voted in another party’s primary in 2012 can’t sign. These primary petitions are due February 5. In 2012, when the four minor parties were entitled to a primary, no U.S. Senate candidate from any of the minor parties was able to obtain the needed 500 signatures (although this was partly because the petitioning period was so short, because the legislature had made a last-minute decision to move the primary from June to March).
The minor party response to the Sixth Circuit therefore asks that the Sixth Circuit not expedite the state’s appeal. But the minor parties request that if the appeal will be expedited, that the briefs all be in by January 17, not January 24, so that the uncertainty will be over that much sooner. In the Sixth Circuit, the case is Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, 14-3030.
On January 8, a federal lawsuit was filed by a 2014 Republican candidate for the Montana legislature, against a law that says if a candidate puts out any printed campaign literature that mentions his or her opponent’s voting record, that literature must also include all of that opponent’s votes on “the same issue” during the last six years.
The case is Monforton v Motl, 6:14cv-0002. It is being expedited, because the plaintiff-candidate wants to put up a billboard next month that does not comply with the law. The plaintiff-candidate is running against an incumbent who cast some votes to inhibit implementation of Obamacare within Montana, yet cast other votes on the other side. The plaintiff-candidate does not want to be forced to list all votes cast by his opponent on that subject on his billboard and also on printed literature he plans.
The Montana law, 13-35-225(3)(a), says printed campaign literature that mentions an opponent’s voting record “must also include a reference to the particular vote or votes upon which the information is based; and a disclosure of contrasting votes known to have been made by the candidate on the same issue if the contrasting votes were made in any of the previous six years.” The same law had been held unconstitutional in 2012, because at the time it didn’t specify “six years”; it just said “closely related in time.” Part of the reason the old law was struck down was that “closely related in time” is too vague. So the 2013 legislature removed “closely related in time” and substituted, “six years.” The old law was also struck down because “the same issue” was too vague, but the 2013 session of the legislature did not amend that part of the law.
On January 9, the New Mexico Supreme refused to reconsider Constitution Party of New Mexico v Duran, 34431. The issue is how to interpret section 1-7-2(c) of the election code, and whether a party that submits a petition gets one or two elections. A side issue was that the law, since 2011, requires parties to be notified no later than March of an odd year, if the party is being removed from the ballot. In 2013, the Secretary of State didn’t notify the Constitution Party officers until July that it was being removed, and didn’t notify the party’s registered members until November.
Because the New Mexico Supreme Court merely refused to hear the case, and expressed no opinion, it would be possible for the Constitution Party to re-file in lower state court, or conceivably even federal court. The Green Party is in a similar situation and it could also plausibly sue.
