On August 17, the Maryland State Court of Appeals, the highest state court in Maryland, issued this brief order, agreeing with the lower court that petitions are valid when the blank petition forms had been distributed to volunteer circulators via the internet and the circulator’s home printer. The order says the court will explain its reasoning later. The case is Whitley v Maryland State Board of Elections, 133-2011.

The action puts a referendum on the ballot that asks voters if they want to repeal the state’s congressional redistricting plan. The Democratic Party tried to persuade the court to invalidate the petition, on the basis that petition blanks cannot be distributed that way. The program also made it possible for voters at home to print a blank petition, sign that petition as a voter, and also sign off as the volunteer circulator. Furthermore, the program made it possible to the signer’s address to be printed by the signer-circulator’s home printer, thus easing legibility concerns, at least for the address. Here is a story about the issues in the case, written before the decision came out. Thanks to Doug McNeil for this news.

The Spokane Spokesman-Review has this comprehensive, clear and balanced story about the lawsuit pending in state court over whether the Republican Party is still ballot-qualified in Washington state.

On August 16, independent candidate Tichi Eppes was placed on the November ballot, after Virginia election officials agreed to sign a consent order in federal court, acknowledging that she did have enough valid signatures to be on the ballot.

Eppes is an independent candidate for Richmond, Virginia School Board. She needed 125 valid signatures and submitted 181 signatures. Election officials checked her petition and said only 122 signatures were valid. She identified ten signatures that had been invalidated improperly, but the officials refused to change their mind. On July 25, she and some of the signers filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Eppes v Showalter, eastern district, 3:12-cv-545. After she filed the lawsuit, election officials acknowledged that she did have enough.

The ten signatures that had been disqualified include two instances when two individuals with the same name live at the same address. The signatures of these two were invalidated on the basis that the Board of Elections didn’t know which of the two individuals at that address had signed. But, of course, that is immaterial; the Board has no need to know which of the two individuals at that same address signed.

The Board had invalidated the signature of a female voter who had signed using her new surname, which had changed because she had recently married. The Board had invalidated one signature on the grounds that the signer had signed the petition twice, but a review showed that she had not signed twice. The Board had invalidated one signature on the basis that the voter was not registered when she signed, but she did register to vote before the petition was submitted, so her name should have been counted. The Board had invalidated one signature on the basis that the handwriting was illegible, but neutral observers were able to read her entry. The Board had invalidated one signature on the basis that the voter was on the inactive voters list. The Board had invalidated two signatures on the basis that the voters had shown their new address on the petition but they are still registered at their old address. Because the Board of Elections conceded that the petition does have enough valid signatures, no judicial determination was made about any particular signature. Here is the complaint in the case and here is the consent order.