The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments in Peace & Freedom Party v Bowen for Thursday, February 13, in San Francisco. The issue is whether the Secretary of State should have listed Peta Lindsay on the party’s presidential primary ballot in 2012. Lindsay is under age 35.

The issue of whether California should print the names of candidates on the ballot who don’t meet the constitutional qualifications is very confused. In 2012, the California Court of Appeals ruled in Fuller v Bowen, 203 Cal App 4th 1476, that election officials do not have the authority to judge the qualifications of candidates for state legislature. The court said the Secretary of State was correct to list a particular Republican candidate for State Senate on the ballot, even though he admitted he had not lived in the district for a full year before filing. The court said only the legislature can judge the qualifications of candidates.

Also, in 2010, the same California Court of Appeals ruled that the Secretary of State should not investigate the qualifications of candidates for president. The decision in Keyes v Bowen, 189 Cal App 4th 647, says, “With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.” The word “must” is in italics.

Yet in the Peace & Freedom case, the U.S. District Court ruled that because Lindsay admits she does not meet the qualifications, the Secretary of State was correct to keep her off the ballot. Long ago, in 1892, California printed the name of the Prohibition Party’s vice-presidential nominee on the ballot even though he was under age 35. Also, in 1972, the California Secretary of State permitted Linda Jenness to be a qualified write-in presidential candidate, even though she was under age 35.

On December 18, the Republican nominee for Attorney General of Virginia will announce formally that he is calling off any further proceedings in the recount. The November 5, 2013 election showed that the Democratic nominee had won by fewer than 200 votes, but the recall so far has increased the Democratic lead to approximately 850 votes. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

On December 16, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Minnesota Majority v Mansky, 13-185. The case concerned a Minnesota law that says, “A political badge, political button, or other political insignia may not be worn at or about the polling place on primary or election day.” The law is interpreted to cover the area around the polling place, up to 100 feet. The case has been filed in 2010 by individuals who wanted to wear buttons. Some of the plaintiffs were election day monitors who wanted to wear buttons that said, “Please I.D. Me.” Other plaintiffs wanted to wear buttons that said “Tea Party Patriots.”

Here is the 8th circuit opinion upholding the law, which was 2-1 and which had been issued on March 6, 2013. That decision conflicts with a U.S. District Court decision from Arizona in 2010, which said that voters were free to wear a tea shirt that said, “Flagstaff Tea Party.” Thanks to several readers for the news.