U.S. Supreme Court Sets Conference Date for Worley v Detzner

Posted on by October 19, 2013
Reply

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Worley v Detzner at its November 1 conference. The Court will probably say on November 4 whether it will hear this case. The issue is a Florida campaign finance law that forces groups that spend as little as $500 on supporting or opposing an initiative to form a political committee or a PAC. Here is the cert petition, 13-333.

Four individuals wanted to each contribute $150 to buy radio ads opposing a statewide initiative that was on the ballot in 2010, but they were not able to do that without setting up a political committee, which requires extensive financial reports on a periodic basis. Florida has draconian fines for any political committee, or other group, that fails to strictly comply with financial report rules.

Ohio Independent Candidate Wins Important Ballot Access Victory

Posted on by October 18, 2013
Reply

On October 18, the Ohio Supreme Court voted 4-3 to place independent candidate Darrita Davis on the Akron, Ohio ballot for City Council. The election is November 5, 2013, and the ballots will now be reprinted to include her. She petitioned as an independent candidate. Her petition was valid but she was still kept off the ballot by the Board of Elections because she had voted in the March 2012 Democratic primary, and in April 2013 had bought a ticket to a Democratic Party event that cost $25, and in June 2013 she had bought a ticket to another Democratic Party event that cost $20.

Ohio law is very vague, on who can qualify as an independent candidate. The law says an independent candidate must be any candidate “who does not consider himself affiliated with a political party.” Ohio does not ask voters to choose a party, or independent status, on voter registration forms. As the majority decision says, “One cannot register with the Secretary of State’s office as an independent.”

Here is the decision, which is State ex rel Davis v Summit County Board of Elections, 2013-4616. The majority opinion is 9 pages. One dissent follows which is two pages, and then another dissent, which is only one page.

The Ohio Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have both been very good on ballot access for the last few years.

Ohio Qualified Minor Parties Have Renewed Hope for Staying on 2014 Ballot

Posted on by October 18, 2013
Reply

Ohio SB 193, the bill that would remove the Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Socialist Parties from the 2014 ballot, passed the State Senate on October 8, the same day it had passed the Senate Committee. However, the House does not appear to be eager to rush the bill. It seems unlikely that the bill will move ahead in the House, either this week or next week.

The longer the delay, the stronger the due process argument becomes. The due process argument is that it is unfair to impose a severe petition burden so late in the petitioning season. If the bill had been in effect after the November 2012 election, the parties could have started working then on getting the needed 56,000 signatures for 2014. Imposing the petition requirement in November 2013 would mean that an entire year of the 2014 petitioning period would have been unavailable.

ACLU Files Lawsuit to Overturn New Arkansas Restrictions on Initiatives

Posted on by October 18, 2013
Reply

On October 10, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of two individuals who have organized statewide initiative petition drives in Arkansas in the recent past, and who hope to sponsor new initiatives in the near future. The lawsuit challenges restrictions placed on initiatives by the 2013 session of the legislature. The case is Spencer v Sealy, Pulaski Circuit Court, 60cv-13-4020. Here is the Complaint.

The challenged restrictions include: (1) the names and addresses of all paid circulators must be filed with the Secretary of State before those petitioners can start to work; (2) paid circulators must sign an oath that they have not been convicted of certain kinds of crime; (3) they must submit a picture of themselves that was taken within the last 90 days; (4) if a petition sheet contains the signature of even one voter who is from the wrong county for that sheet, the entire sheet is invalid; (5) the law makes it a criminal offense for a circulator to fill in any blanks on behalf of the voter, unless the voter is “disabled” (the law doesn’t define “disabled”); (6) if a petition sheet contains even one signature that has a “material defect” the entire sheet is invalid (the law doesn’t define “material defect”).

There will be a trial next month. This is the type of lawsuit that requires considerable evidence. The lawsuit is filed in state court because the state Constitution protects the initiative process, so the plaintiffs will argue that the new restrictions violate the State Constitution. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.

Dr. Astrid Sarvis, Wife of Rob Sarvis, Asks for Reconsideration of Debate Decision

Posted on by October 18, 2013
Reply

Dr. Astrid Sarvis has recorded and released her appeal for a reconsideration of the decision that excluded her husband, Rob Sarvis, from the October 24 Virginia gubernatorial debate. The 15-minute self-made video can be watched at this link from the Sarvis campaign web page.

Dr. Sarvis relates how she grew up in the Delta region of western Mississippi, and how her mother experienced the struggle for an end to public school segregation. The video explains that even today in that region, the overwhelming majority of white students attend private schools, and the region’s public schools are of poor quality. Nevertheless, Dr. Sarvis became a pediatrician. She also makes it very clear that the rules for debate inclusion were never clearly explained, before the decision was made. She asks that Ken Cuccinelli and Terry McAuliffe, and the debate sponsors, reconsider their decision not to allow a three-candidate debate. Read Darcy Richardson’s commentary about the video here. Thanks to UncoveredPolitics for the link.