The Libertarian Party national web page now has a list of Libertarian Party candidates in the November 2012 election. See it here. This list will grow. In some states the time for the party to nominate candidates is still in the future.
The list mentions some California candidates for partisan office, but all of those candidates are barred from running in November because they failed to place first or second in the June 5 primary.
The state with the most Libertarian candidates so far is Texas.
On June 29, Charles Merriman, attorney for the independent candidate who has been challenging the Vermont June petition deadline for independent candidates, asked the Vermont Supreme Court to expedite the case. Here is the letter, requesting that the case be expedited. It explains that two presidential candidates, Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson, could benefit if the June 14 deadline were declared unconstitutional. The letter could have mentioned Virgil Goode as well.
The plaintiff who filed this case, Gerald Trudell, was trying to get on the ballot as an independent for U.S. House in 2010. Because that election is in the past, the lawsuit had previously not been perceived as one that needs to be expedited.
According to this news story, the Colorado Constitution Party’s nominee for Regent of the University of Colorado will be Tyler Belmont. He is now age 17, but he will be 18 by the time of the election, and thus eligible to serve if elected. Colorado elects Regents of the University in partisan elections. There are both at-large seats (covering the whole state) and seats representing districts. Belmont is running in the at-large seat.
California’s November 2012 ballot will contain two initiatives to increase state income taxes. One initiative is sponsored by Governor Jerry Brown and groups allied with him, especially state government employee unions. The other initiative is sponsored by Molly Munger and is endorsed by the PTA (Parents-Teachers Association) of California.
Both initiatives hold themselves out as measures that would increase funding for education. However, the Munger initiative sends the additional revenue directly to local schools, whereas the Governor’s initiative is not so specific about what the money would be used for, and would put the additional revenue into the state general fund.
The Munger initiative signatures were submitted first. Traditionally, initiatives are placed on the November ballot in the order in which their proponents submitted the signatures. However, on June 25, the legislature amended AB 1499 to provide that initiatives that amend the Constitution should appear on the ballot ahead of other initiatives. The amended bill passed on June 27 in both houses, was signed by the Governor on June 27, and takes effect immediately. The Governor’s initiative is a constitutional amendment, whereas the Munger initiative is not.
On June 28, Molly Munger and Our Children Our Future (proponents of her initiative) filed a lawsuit, arguing that (1) the new law violates due process by changing the rules after the initiatives were submitted; (2) that county elections officials in at least two counties deliberately postponed checking the Munger initiative until after they had checked the Governor’s initiative, which caused the Secretary of State to then announce that the Governor’s initiative had qualified before the Munger initiative had qualified. On June 29, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley granted a Temporary Restraining Order, preventing the Secretary of State from assigning ballot measure numbers to each statewide ballot measure. He also set a hearing for July 9. And, he authorized Discovery, so that the county elections officials who allegedly checked the initiative petitions in a different order in which they were submitted may be questioned about that. The case is Our Children, Our Future v Bowen, Sacramento Superior Court, 34-2012-80001194. UPDATE: California newspapers are criticizing the legislature’s attempt to change the ballot order. See here.
Other initiatives that will be on the November ballot, in the order in which they were submitted, are: (1) payroll tax deductions for government employee unions; (2) auto insurance; (3) a referendum on State Senate districts; (4) death penalty repeal; (5) sex offender registration for sex traffickers; (6) revision of the 3-strikes law for criminal sentences; (7) labels for genetically engineered foods; (8) calculation of taxes for multistate businesses; (9) the only other constitutional amendment initiative, one to change the budget cycle to two years.
On June 11, a lawsuit was filed by 119 Republican delegates to the Republican National Convention, alleging that all delegates should be allowed to vote for whomever they wish at the upcoming convention, and also complaining about various instances when the Republican National Committee showed bias in favor of Mitt Romney and against other candidates for the nomination. The overwhelming number of delegates in the lawsuit are Ron Paul supporters. Paul does not endorse this lawsuit but neither has he criticized it. The case is Delegates to the Republican National Convention et al v Republican National Committee et al. It is filed in U.S. District Court in Orange County, California, and is case 8:12-cv-927. The case also includes a few non-delegate voters.
The case was assigned to Judge David O. Carter, who promptly referred it to Alternate Dispute Resolution, a system in which cases are mediated.
The plaintiffs include the following number of Delegates from each of these states: Alabama 1, Alaska 2, Arizona 53, California 3, Colorado 4, Florida 1, Georgia 35, Illinois 3, Iowa 1, Louisiana 1, Maine 2, Massachusetts 2, Michigan 3, Missouri 2, Nevada 3, New Jersey 1, South Carolina 1, Texas 1. The attorney for the delegates is Richard C. Gilbert of Santa Ana, California.
