Here is the opening brief of the Greenville County Republican Party, in the case over South Carolina laws that force the party to let non-members vote in its primaries, even when the party pays to administer those primaries. This brief was filed on January 27, 2014. The case is Greenville County Republican Party v Way, 13-2170, in the Fourth Circuit.
Sean Sullivan has this Washington Post column, arguing that the entry of a Libertarian, Rob Sarvis, in the race is not likely to affect the identity of the winner. The column contains the exit polling data for the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial race to support its conclusion.
New Mexico State Senator Daniel Ivey-Soto has introduced SB 125, to move the petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties from April to the day after the primary, which is the first week in June. Thanks to Carol Miller for this news.
Traditionally, all across the nation, if an initiative is filed and has enough valid signatures, but opponents believe the initiative is invalid, the opponents sue election officials to remove the initiative from the ballot. However, in 2010, when four initiatives were filed in Boulder City, Nevada, the city government sued the proponents of the initiative instead.
On January 24, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Boulder City should not have sued the proponents of the initiatives. The decision is Jensen v City of Boulder City, 57116. The Court said if the city believed the initiatives were invalid, it should have sued the government agency that put the measures on the ballot. The four city initiatives were on these subjects: (1) whether the city council could go into debt above $1,000,000 without getting voter approval; (2) term limits for members of city commission members; (3) whether the city should own more than one golf course; (4) whether the city attorney should be an elected position. The first two of those passed, but the voters rejected the latter two.
The lower court had ruled that it was proper for the city to sue the initiative proponents. The city was not suing the proponents for monetary damages, but the city was putting the burden of defending the legal sufficiency of the initiatives on the proponents. The lawsuit had been pending since 2010, the year the initiatives were on the ballot. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.
Paul Zukerberg, the only candidate who filed a petition to run for District of Columbia Attorney General in any primary this year, is currently battling the Washington, D.C. government over whether that office will be on the ballot in the April 1 primary. Zukerberg submitted 4,800 signatures to gain a place on the Democratic Party primary ballot for that office. No one else filed.
The voters of Washington, D.C., had passed a ballot measure in 2010, providing for an Attorney General election in 2014. The ballot said the election would be in 2014, but the actual law, the text of which was too long to print on the ballot, said the election should be held “after January 1, 2014”. The D.C. city council then passed an ordinance saying the first election for that office would be in 2018.
Here is a news story about the government’s brief, which apparently says that voter intent is of no importance when ballot measures are voted on. The lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court, in the D.C. court system (not the federal court system) and obviously the case will be decided quickly, because the primary ballots will be printed in February.
