On June 29, some Pennsylvania voters filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, arguing that Pennsylvania must hold special elections for all legislative seats in 2013, because the 2012 election is using districts based on the 2000 census instead of the 2010 census. See this story.
On July 2, the Washington state Democratic Party filed this reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Washington State Democratic Central Committee v Washington State Grange. This is the lawsuit in which the Democratic and Libertarian Parties argue that the top-two system is unconstitutional.
On June 29, Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry P. Lewis of Leon County issued this ruling in Voeltz v Obama, 2012-ca-467. This case was filed by individuals who believe that President Obama is not eligible to be President. Larry Klayman was the attorney for the plaintiffs.
The decision holds that someone may be a “natural-born citizen” if he or she is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents. It also holds that even setting that issue aside, the case is not ripe because President Obama is not yet the Democratic Party nominee for President. The plaintiffs had argued that because Obama had won the Florida Democratic presidential primary, he is the presidential nominee of the Florida Democratic Party.
The part of the ruling that differentiates the presidential primary from the primary for other office is potentially a useful precedent for anyone arguing that “sore loser” laws don’t apply to presidential primaries.
The ruling also says that the Secretary of State of Florida has no duty to investigate the qualifications of candidates. This part of the ruling will bolster the favorable ruling made last year by the Florida Secretary of State. He ruled last year that he will not enforce the part of the 2011 election law that imposes severe petition requirements on qualified minor parties that wish to place a presidential candidate on the ballot, if those parties are not recognized as “national committees” by the Federal Election Commission. The Secretary of State said last year he has no official knowledge of which parties are recognized by the FEC, and that he will assume any party that applies to place a presidential nominee on the ballot is eligible to do that. The ruling in Voeltz v Obama strengths that ruling by the Secretary of State. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link to the opinion.
Late in the afternoon of July 2, challenges were filed against the presidential petitions of the Justice, Socialist, and Constitution Party petitions, along with a challenge to Michael W. Hawkins’ presidential petition, which uses the party label “Together Enhancing America.” No challenge appears to have been filed against the Libertarian petition or the Green petition. Challenges had to be in the office of the State Board of Elections by 5 p.m. Illinois time on July 2. The State Board of Elections does a good job of posting challenges very soon after they are filed, so the Libertarians and Greens seem safe, for president.
The challenges to the Justice, Socialist and Constitution Party presidential petitions will have the effect of removing those parties from the ballot, since those petitions did not have as many as 25,000 signatures. Illinois is the only state in which any petition will work to place someone on the ballot if no one challenges.
The District of Columbia petition requirement for independent presidential candidates, and the presidential nominees of unqualified parties, is 4,667 valid signatures. That is substantially higher than it was in 2008, when it was 3,907. The formula is 1% of the current number of registered voters.
Between 1964 and 1972, the requirement was 5% of the number of registered voters. Congress lowered it to the current formula in 1973.
Besides the Democratic and Republican Parties, the only party that is ballot-qualified in D.C. is the Green Party, which is called the Statehood Green Party. In 2008, the only successful presidential petition in D.C. was Ralph Nader’s independent petition.
