Alabama Minor Parties Ask for Reconsideration, in Case Challenging March Petition Deadline

Posted on by October 4, 2013
Reply

On October 3, the Alabama Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties asked for reconsideration in Stein v Chapman. Last month the U.S. District Court upheld the law that requires newly-qualifying parties to submit their 44,829 valid signatures by March. The District Court had said because the three parties were able to place their presidential nominees on the November 2012 ballot as independent candidates (which requires 5,000 signatures by September of the election year), the burden on them and their voters is “slight.”

The U.S. District Court based its decision on the U.S. Supreme Court 1997 decision that upheld a Minnesota state law that made it impossible for a candidate nominated by two parties to have both party names on the ballot next to his or her name. The Alabama court said therefore, keeping all of a party’s nominees from having their party name is also a “slight” burden. The request for rehearing points out the obvious difference between keeping a single nominee from having a party label on the ballot, versus depriving all of a party’s nominees of a party label.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Ducks Constitutional Issue, in Case Over Requiring Independent Candidates to Use Substitution Committees

Posted on by October 4, 2013
Reply

On October 4, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an eight-page opinion, keeping Nevin Mindlin off the November 5, 2013 ballot as an independent candidate for Mayor of Harrisburg. The case is In Re: Nomination Papers of Mindlin, 1392 C.D. 2013.

Mindlin had enough valid signatures, but he was still kept off the ballot because his petitions did not fill out the blanks that are provided for candidates to appoint a substitution committee. Pennsylvania election law technically does not recognize that anyone is ever an independent candidate. The law assumes that all candidates are either nominees of political parties or nominees of political bodies. The law also assumes that it is desirable for party nominees to have a substitution committee, which is a committee of people who will choose a new nominee in case the original nominee (the candidate or candidates named on the petition) die, or withdraw, or become incapacitated.

Mindlin didn’t list a substitution committee because he is a true independent candidate. His position was that if something unexpected happened to cause his candidacy to be curtailed before the election, he wouldn’t want any replacement named. He argued that Pennsylvania law violates the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Storer v Brown (a 1974 decision) that says states must have ballot access procedures for both independent candidates and newly-qualifying parties. But the Commonwealth Court said it would not discuss this argument, because Mindlin did not raise this argument in the trial court. So, the issue remains unresolved. Today’s opinion will not be published.

The Commonwealth Court took a very long time to issue this decision, considering the timing of the election. The case was argued on September 12 and the election is on November 5. Absentee ballots were printed up with Mindlin’s name on the ballot. UPDATE: here is a newspaper story about the decision.

U.S. District Court Sets Expedited Schedule for Briefs in Case Challenging Ohio Ban on Out-of-State Circulators

Posted on by October 4, 2013
Reply

On October 3, U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Wilson set an expedited schedule for briefing in two cases that challenge Ohio’s new ban on out-of-state circulators for all types of petitions except independent presidential candidate petitions. The two cases, which are being heard together, are Citizens in Charge v Husted, and Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted. The first deals with initiative petitions and the second with candidate petitions.

The state’s brief is due October 18 and any response brief by the plaintiffs is due October 25.