The Vermont Secretary of State’s office has ruled that Jill Stein, Green Party presidential nominee, will not be on the Vermont ballot. The office ruled that the court victory won by Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party only applies to Anderson, and the principles set forth in that decision will not be extended to other presidential candidates who were in a similar situation.
On September 21, U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello will hear Citizen Center v Gessler, 1:12-cv-370. The issue is whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees a secret ballot. At least six Colorado counties plan to print ballots with bar codes, that could conceivably enable someone to learn how a particular voter voted. Citizen Center is a non-profit membership organization that wants to protect the secret ballot. The hearing will be at 8:30 a.m. Presumably, the judge will decide the case very quickly after the hearing, because the ballot-printing process needs to begin.
Citizen Center depends on the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
On September 13, a 3-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an opinion in In re Nomination Paper of Robertson, 507 MD 2012, the case over whether the statewide Libertarian petition has enough valid signatures. By a vote of 2-1, the Court ruled that signatures are not invalid just because the signer had moved and showed the new address on the petition, whereas the signer is still registered at the old address. However, that is only true for signers who moved within the county, not to another county. Here is the court order. Scroll down to the bottom to get the substance.
The Libertarian Party lost on the issue of whether a signature is invalid if the signer put the month and day, but not the year, in the date column. However, such signatures can be redeemed if the signer signs a new affidavit saying he or she signed in 2012, but such affidavit is due September 21. Obviously it would be extremely difficult for the party to locate these signers and obtain such an affidavit, especially in just eight days. The vote on that was also 2-1; the dissenting judge felt the signatures are valid. The form says at the bottom “Revised January 2012.”
It seems somewhat plausible that the first part of the decision, concerning the validity of signatures when the signer moved within the county, will provide enough valid signatures that the petition will be verified. However, it is very likely that the Commonwealth Court decision will be appealed to the State Supreme Court. Thanks to Richard Schwarz for the link.
According to this story, at least three Republican presidential elector candidates say, if they are elected, they may vote for someone other than Mitt Romney. The story mentions elector candidates by name from Iowa, Nevada, and Texas. Of these three, the Texas elector’s statement has the most punch, because the Texas Republican electors are considered certain to be elected. Thanks to John Koza for the link.
On Wednesday, September 12, a panel of three Commonwealth Court Judges heard arguments over whether Libertarian signatures on the Pennsylvania statewide petition are valid or invalid if (1) the voter moved since registering to vote, and signed the petition with the new address; (2) if the signer entered the month and day but not “2012” in the “date” column. See this AP story on the hearing. A decision is expected Thursday, September 13. However, whichever side loses is expected to appeal to the State Supreme Court. While that happens, the grueling process of verifying signatures will begin again on Monday, September 17.
On Tuesday, September 11, U.S. District Court Lawrence Stengel heard arguments in Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Aichele, 5:12-cv-2726. This is the case in which the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties attack the Pennsylvania fee-challenge system, which puts petitioning groups at risk of being liable for as much as $110,000 if their petitions are rejected. Judge Stengel had jurisdiction over a similar case, filed by the same parties, back in 2009. He dismissed that case on ripeness and standing. At the beginning of the oral argument, he asked, “Didn’t I uphold this law before?” He had to be reminded that his first decision did not reach the merits of the case. The precedents are so strong that the system is unconstitutional, the state and the intervenors (the Republican challengers) have never put forth any theory in their briefs as to how it could be constitutional. But they tried very hard to persuade the judge to abstain on the grounds that the constitutional issues should be aired in the state courts. Judge Stengel seemed tempermentally inclined to want to abstain, but there are substantial legal arguments that say abstention would be legally improper.
