On August 16, the Michigan Libertarian Party filed this brief, in Libertarian Party of Michigan v Ruth Johnson, the case over whether Gary Johnson’s name should be on the November ballot.
5
The Spokane Spokesman-Review has this comprehensive, clear and balanced story about the lawsuit pending in state court over whether the Republican Party is still ballot-qualified in Washington state.
On August 16, a lower state court in South Carolina removed Mike Barnes from the November ballot, even though he won the Republican primary in June, for Greenville County Council, 18th district. In response, the State Election Commission then put the loser in that primary, the incumbent, Joe Baldwin, on the November ballot. See this story. Barnes was removed because he couldn’t prove he had filed the Statement of Economic Interests back in March. Incumbents were not required to file that form.
Baldwin still has the option to be a write-in candidate in November. He says he hasn’t decided whether to campaign as a write-in candidate.
On August 16, independent candidate Tichi Eppes was placed on the November ballot, after Virginia election officials agreed to sign a consent order in federal court, acknowledging that she did have enough valid signatures to be on the ballot.
Eppes is an independent candidate for Richmond, Virginia School Board. She needed 125 valid signatures and submitted 181 signatures. Election officials checked her petition and said only 122 signatures were valid. She identified ten signatures that had been invalidated improperly, but the officials refused to change their mind. On July 25, she and some of the signers filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Eppes v Showalter, eastern district, 3:12-cv-545. After she filed the lawsuit, election officials acknowledged that she did have enough.
The ten signatures that had been disqualified include two instances when two individuals with the same name live at the same address. The signatures of these two were invalidated on the basis that the Board of Elections didn’t know which of the two individuals at that address had signed. But, of course, that is immaterial; the Board has no need to know which of the two individuals at that same address signed.
The Board had invalidated the signature of a female voter who had signed using her new surname, which had changed because she had recently married. The Board had invalidated one signature on the grounds that the signer had signed the petition twice, but a review showed that she had not signed twice. The Board had invalidated one signature on the basis that the voter was not registered when she signed, but she did register to vote before the petition was submitted, so her name should have been counted. The Board had invalidated one signature on the basis that the handwriting was illegible, but neutral observers were able to read her entry. The Board had invalidated one signature on the basis that the voter was on the inactive voters list. The Board had invalidated two signatures on the basis that the voters had shown their new address on the petition but they are still registered at their old address. Because the Board of Elections conceded that the petition does have enough valid signatures, no judicial determination was made about any particular signature. Here is the complaint in the case and here is the consent order.
On August 16, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Sharp refused to order a new Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate in Tennessee. Larry Crim had charged that the primary was flawed and should be re-run. The case is Crim v Tennessee Democratic Party. See this story. The basis for the denial of relief is apparently a technical flaw in the Complaint, which was only filed the day before the hearing.
As noted previously, the person who won the Democratic primary has already been disavowed by the state party, but the state party itself has not taken any legal action to replace its nominee. UPDATE: see this story, which describes the hearing and is unusually funny for an article that describes an election law matter.