Dean and Nicole Greco have completed work on their first full-length film, which is a documentary about U.S. ballot access laws. The first public showing will be at the Flemington, New Jersey, Elks Lodge on Rt. 31, on Sunday, November 3. Flemington is in west central New Jersey. Here is a newspaper story about the event. The name of the film is “Breakficants.”
The Hawaii Justice Party has a lawsuit pending against the February petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties. The case had been set for trial on October 15, but both sides have agreed to postpone it until January 7, 2014. This postponement will make it somewhat more likely that the case can be settled. The case is Justice Party v Nago, U.S. District Court, 1:12cv-403.
On October 9, the plaintiffs in Stone v Board of Election Commissioners filed this opening brief in the 7th circuit. The case is a challenge to the petition requirements for citywide candidates in Chicago. The law requires 12,500 valid signatures, to be collected in 90 days during late autumn and winter. No one can sign for more than one candidate.
The brief explains the reality of petitioning in Chicago citywide offices. The powerful Democratic Party machine has its favorite candidates, even though Chicago city elections are non-partisan. The party organization collects hundreds of thousands of signatures for its chosen candidates, shrinking the poll of voters who still haven’t signed for anyone. The brief also argues that 12,500 signatures are not needed, given that candidates for statewide office in a major party primary in Illinois only need 5,000 signatures.
The case is Stone v Board of Election Commissioners, 13-2733.
The Memphis Daily News has this article about the special legislative election set for November 21, 2013. The article includes information about the recent Libertarian Party lawsuit. The election will have the Democratic nominee on the ballot, and the Libertarian nominee on the ballot. The Libertarian nominee, James Tomasik, wants to be listed on the ballot as “Libertarian”, not “independent.”
On October 7, the Republican Party of Nevada asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit decision in Townley v State of Nevada, 722 F.3d 1128 (July 10, 2013). The Ninth Circuit decision said that the Republican Party of Nevada, and some of its candidates for presidential elector, did not have standing to challenge Nevada’s election law concerning “None of these candidates.” The case also included some voters who said they wanted to vote for “None of these candidates” in future elections, but they were told they don’t have standing either.
The Republican Party and some of its candidates for presidential elector had argued that voters who vote for “None of these candidates” are being discriminated against, because if their choice wins, nothing happens. Therefore, the state is giving less power to a voter who votes for “None” than is given to voters who vote for a candidate. The Ninth Circuit ruled that neither the party, nor its candidates, nor the voter-plaintiffs, have standing.
If the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case, that Court would be expected to issue an opinion about standing, not about the merits of “None of these candidates.” If the Court ruled that the party and its candidates do have standing, the case would be sent back to the lower courts to decide the merits.
Nevada has printed “None of these candidates” on primary and general election ballots starting in 1976. “None of these candidates” is only printed on the ballot for statewide offices, however, not district or local offices. In the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is called Republican Party of Nevada v Miller, 13-442.
