Nevada Republican Party Joins the Pending Lawsuit Against “None of These Candidates”

Posted on by November 17, 2012
16

The Nevada Republican Party has entered the pending federal case that argues that “None of these candidates” should not appear on the ballot in future Nevada elections, unless the law is amended to provide that if “None of these candidates” gets the most votes, that result has a binding effect (in other words, no one is nominated or elected, and a vacancy is created). The case is Townley v Miller, 9th circuit, 12-16881 and 12-16882.

The Republican Party seeks the join the case because it argues that having “None of these candidates” on the ballot, especially in general elections, harms the Republican Party and its nominees. On November 7, the 9th circuit granted the party’s motion to be added as a plaintiff. The case had originally been filed by some Nevada voters and some Republican Party nominees for presidential elector.

The Nevada law, putting “None of these candidates” on the ballot, only applies to statewide office, not district or local office.

Peace & Freedom Party California Lawsuit Has Potential to Explore Secretary of State’s Inconsistency in Determining Qualifications of Candidates

Posted on by November 17, 2012
1

Even though the 2012 election is over, the federal lawsuit filed by the Peace & Freedom Party against the California Secretary of State’s decision to bar Peta Lindsay from the party’s presidential primary ballot is still alive. The case has the potential to explore California’s inconsistent behavior on candidate qualifications and ballot access. The case is Peace & Freedom Party v Bowen, eastern district, 2:12-cv-853.

On April 26, U.S. District Court Judge Garland Burrell had refused to order the Secretary of State to place Peta Lindsay on the June 2012 primary ballot. The Secretary of State had refused to put her on the ballot because she is younger than 35 years of age. However, so far, the Judge has not ruled on the Secretary of State’s motion to dismiss the case, which was filed on September 6. In the meantime, the court has said that, assuming the case is not dismissed, discovery is to be completed by July 9, 2013, and a trial will be held on February 11, 2014.

Plaintiffs want to explore the Secretary of State’s custom and practice concerning investigation of qualifications of candidates, and the actual decision-making process involved in her decision to rule Lindsay off the ballot. When various individuals have asked the Secretary of State, in the past, to investigate the qualifications of U.S. Senator John McCain and U.S. Senator Barack Obama, when they ran for President in 2008, the Secretary of State took the position that she has no authority to investigate qualifications. The Secretary of State also takes the position that she cannot judge the qualifications of candidates for the state legislature, even when everyone agrees that a particular legislative candidate does not meet the California Constitution’s duration of residency requirement.

Steve Hill Op-Ed, Analyzing California’s First Regularly-Scheduled Top-Two Election, Appears in Sacramento Bee

Posted on by November 16, 2012
14

The November 16 Sacramento Bee has an op-ed by Steve Hill, analyzing how California’s first regularly-scheduled top-two election worked. See it here at Hill’s own web page. Hill’s own web page has a link to the Sacramento Bee, for readers who are already signed up to read articles at the Bee on-line.

Now is the Time to Ask State Legislators to Introduce Helpful Election Law Bills

Posted on by November 16, 2012
5

Now is the time for anyone who is unhappy with his or her state’s election laws to ask a state legislator, or a legislator-elect, to introduce bills in the 2013 sessions of that state’s legislature.

Deadline vary tremendously, but some states have very early deadlines for legislators to introduce bills. Indiana requires bills in the 2013 session to have been introduced by late 2012.

As far as is known, activists in the following states are already working on getting ballot access bills introduced: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Georgia Libertarians ought to be seeking a change in the law, to enable the party to run candidates for U.S. House, legislature, and county partisan office. The Georgia law, making it virtually impossible for the Libertarian Party to run for these offices, is absurd, when one considers that statewide Libertarian nominees in partisan elections carried counties in both 2008 and 2012, and polled over one-third of the vote in one statewide partisan race last week.