Ballot Access for a Minor Party in Middletown, Connecticut, is Still Unsettled; Elections is Less than Three Weeks Away

The Realistic Balance Party, a party that exists only to contest city elections in Middletown, Connecticut, still doesn’t know if its candidates will be on the November 5, 2013 ballot. See this story. A decision from a lower state court is expected by the end of the week.

Several similar lawsuits had been adjudicated recently in a few other Connecticut cities and towns. A new state law that year said that parties that nominate by convention must obtain the signatures of all their nominees, on the certificates that the party submits to election officials. The new law was not publicized and courts have been trying to determine if due process for these parties and their nominees was violated when they were kept off the ballot.

Colorado State Appeals Court Keeps Initiative on Ballot Despite Minor Technical Problems

On October 15, the Colorado State Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that Amendment 66 should remain on the ballot. Opponents of the initiative had charged that the petition should be rejected. Colorado requires notarization of petitions. Opponents said that the notary public himself or herself should have written in the type of identification that petitioner had presented, such as a drivers license. Instead, on some sheets, the petitioner had filled in that blank, instead of the notary public. The initiative needed 86,105 valid signatures, and had 89,820 valid signatures, assuming the points raised in the lawsuit were disregarded.

Also opponents of the initiative had said that some sheets were invalid because the petitioner didn’t always include his or her permanent address. Here is an editorial about the lawsuit. The editorial expresses the view that the objections to the petition are not important enough to invalidate the petition.

California State Appeals Court Lets Palmdale Proceed with November 5 Election for City Council

On October 15, a California State Court of Appeals permitted the city of Palmdale to proceed with its November 5 election for city council. However, it is still not certain that the results will be allowed to stand. A lawsuit is currently pending against the city’s at-large city council elections, based on the California Voting Rights Act, which prevents at-large city elections if the at-large system seems to prevent a sizable ethic or racial minority from winning any seats on the council.

On September 30, a Superior Court Judge had enjoined the election. Then the State Court of Appeals reinstated it, partly on the technicality that the plaintiffs had not filed a bond. But then the Superior Court Judge had ruled that the bond isn’t needed, and the election was off again; but now it is on.

Arizona State Appeals Court Enjoins Higher Contribution Limits

On October 15, the Arizona State Court of Appeals, Division One, suspended the higher contribution limits passed by the 2013 session of the legislature. The court acted only two hours after hearing oral arguments. There is no opinion yet.

The lawsuit is Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v Brain, 1 CA-SA 13-0239. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission runs the state’s public funding program, and it opposes the new higher contribution limits because it believes that higher campaign contribution limits will motivate candidates to ignore the public funding program. The Commission argued that the Arizona Constitution requires changes to the public funding program can only take effect if 3/4ths of the legislators approve them. The 2013 bill, raising the contribution limits, did not get enough support in the legislature to meet that standard. The legislature, on the other hand, argues that the contribution limits are not really part of the public funding law.

The 2013 bill raised the maximum donation to a legislative candidate from $440 to $4,000. The legislature and the Secretary of State will probably ask the State Supreme Court to overturn the State Court of Appeals. Some 2014 candidates have already received some contributions that are in excess of the old limits. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

Wisconsin Bill to Count Only Write-ins for Declared Candidates

On October 14, seven Wisconsin legislators introduced AB 419. It provides that write-in votes should only be counted for candidates who file a campaign finance statement. The bill makes an exception for offices for which no one’s name is printed on the ballot.

Candidates who have no contributions or expenditures are still free to file a campaign finance statement. But if they do have contributions or expenditures, they must choose a campaign treasurer.

AB 419 has a hearing in the House Committee on Campaigns and Elections on October 16. Wisconsin already requires write-in presidential candidates to file a notice if they want their write-ins counted. But, current law for office other than president requires that all write-ins be counted. The purpose behind AB 419 is probably to save election administrators the costs of counting write-ins for people who are not running, or who do not exist, such as famous cartoon characters. Thanks to Rick Kissell for this news.