On September 17, the Green Party and the Constitution Party filed this response brief in the pending ballot access case involving Tennessee. The case is in the Sixth Circuit. The parties had won in the lower court, and Tennessee is appealing. There will be one more brief, by state officials. The chief issues are (1) whether it is constitutional for the state to require over 40,000 signatures for newly-qualifying parties given that it only requires 25 signatures for any independent candidate; (2) whether it is constitutional to provide that the two largest parties always get the top spot on the ballot.
On September 18, Quinnipiac Polls released a poll for the Virginia gubernatorial race, showing Libertarian Rob Sarvis at 7%. Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe is at 44% and Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli is at 41%. Undecided is at 8%.
When Quinnipiac last did a Virginia gubernatorial poll, on July 16, it did not ask respondents about Sarvis. The July 16 poll showed that “someone else” (which had to be volunteered by the respondent) was only 1%. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
It is not true that polls necessarily overstate actual support for minor party and independent candidates. In November 2012, the actual results for three Libertarian U.S. Senate candidates were approximately as high as the polls had suggested. Andrew Horning in Indiana got 5.67%, Jonathan Dine in Missouri got 6.07%, and Dan Cox in Montana got 6.56%.
On September 16, the Tea Party Leadership Fund asked the Federal Election Commission to grant an exemption, so that the Fund would not need to disclose the names of people who contribute to the Fund. Here is the 13-page request from the Fund.
The letter says “The TEA Party is not a political party as defined by FECA because it does not nominate candidates to federal office.” It also says, “The TEA Party and its supporters are political outsiders untethered to – and often at odds with – both major political parties.” That sentence is likely to draw skepticism.
The request is based on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that exempted the NAACP from disclosing its membership to certain southern state governments in the 1950’s, and the U.S. Supreme Court 1982 decision that exempted the Socialist Workers Party from disclosing its contributors and also its expenditures. Lower courts have granted similar exemptions to the Communist, Socialist Action, and Freedom Socialist Parties.
Page nine lists instances of government harassment of the TEA Party, and page ten describes examples of private harassment against the TEA Party. Page eleven then lists many instances when certain members of Congress made very hostile statements about the TEA Party. The request explains that the U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the Socialist Workers Party said that groups making exemptions can use evidence that concerns similar groups, not just the group that is seeking the exemption.
The request does not present evidence that government agents infiltrated the Fund, or any other TEA Party. By contrast, the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party were able to prove that many government employees had infiltrated those parties, especially FBI agents.
On September 17, Constitution Party nominee Jim Barr, running for the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Council, won his lawsuit in lower state court. His petition had been challenged by his Republican opponent. The judge initially ruled that because some of the signatures were illegible, the candidate had not established that he had the required 250 valid signatures. But the judge’s initial ruling said that if Barr could bring the signers to court in a later proceeding, and if enough of them testified that they did sign, then he could get back on the ballot.
No one expected Barr to accept the judge’s invitation, but he did. He subpoened almost all the voters who signed, whose signature had been ruled illegible. It worked, as this story explains. Barr did not have an attorney and represented himself. Thanks to Ed Bortz for the link.
On September 17, the Texas NAACP and the Mexican American Caucus of the Texas House filed a new lawsuit against the 2011 law that requires voters at the polls to show one of six types of government photo-ID. The 2011 law still hasn’t been implemented.
The new lawsuit is Texas State Conference of NAACP v Steen, in the Southern District, Corpus Christi Division. This case will almost surely be combined with the lawsuit filed by the federal government in August against the same law, which is called U.S.A. v State of Texas. Here is the complaint in the new case. It argues that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.