The Washington Post of October 17 has this op-ed by Rob Richie and Devin McCarthy, proposing 3-member U.S. House districts combined with ranked-choice voting. The rules could provide that candidates with 25% support would have a good chance to win one seat. Probably most such districts would elect two Republicans and one Democrat, or two Democrats and one Republican. Odds that an independent or minor party could win a seat would increase.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Worley v Detzner at its November 1 conference. The Court will probably say on November 4 whether it will hear this case. The issue is a Florida campaign finance law that forces groups that spend as little as $500 on supporting or opposing an initiative to form a political committee or a PAC. Here is the cert petition, 13-333.
Four individuals wanted to each contribute $150 to buy radio ads opposing a statewide initiative that was on the ballot in 2010, but they were not able to do that without setting up a political committee, which requires extensive financial reports on a periodic basis. Florida has draconian fines for any political committee, or other group, that fails to strictly comply with financial report rules.
On October 18, the Ohio Supreme Court voted 4-3 to place independent candidate Darrita Davis on the Akron, Ohio ballot for City Council. The election is November 5, 2013, and the ballots will now be reprinted to include her. She petitioned as an independent candidate. Her petition was valid but she was still kept off the ballot by the Board of Elections because she had voted in the March 2012 Democratic primary, and in April 2013 had bought a ticket to a Democratic Party event that cost $25, and in June 2013 she had bought a ticket to another Democratic Party event that cost $20.
Ohio law is very vague, on who can qualify as an independent candidate. The law says an independent candidate must be any candidate “who does not consider himself affiliated with a political party.” Ohio does not ask voters to choose a party, or independent status, on voter registration forms. As the majority decision says, “One cannot register with the Secretary of State’s office as an independent.”
Here is the decision, which is State ex rel Davis v Summit County Board of Elections, 2013-4616. The majority opinion is 9 pages. One dissent follows which is two pages, and then another dissent, which is only one page.
The Ohio Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have both been very good on ballot access for the last few years.
Ohio SB 193, the bill that would remove the Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Socialist Parties from the 2014 ballot, passed the State Senate on October 8, the same day it had passed the Senate Committee. However, the House does not appear to be eager to rush the bill. It seems unlikely that the bill will move ahead in the House, either this week or next week.
The longer the delay, the stronger the due process argument becomes. The due process argument is that it is unfair to impose a severe petition burden so late in the petitioning season. If the bill had been in effect after the November 2012 election, the parties could have started working then on getting the needed 56,000 signatures for 2014. Imposing the petition requirement in November 2013 would mean that an entire year of the 2014 petitioning period would have been unavailable.
On October 10, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of two individuals who have organized statewide initiative petition drives in Arkansas in the recent past, and who hope to sponsor new initiatives in the near future. The lawsuit challenges restrictions placed on initiatives by the 2013 session of the legislature. The case is Spencer v Sealy, Pulaski Circuit Court, 60cv-13-4020. Here is the Complaint.
The challenged restrictions include: (1) the names and addresses of all paid circulators must be filed with the Secretary of State before those petitioners can start to work; (2) paid circulators must sign an oath that they have not been convicted of certain kinds of crime; (3) they must submit a picture of themselves that was taken within the last 90 days; (4) if a petition sheet contains the signature of even one voter who is from the wrong county for that sheet, the entire sheet is invalid; (5) the law makes it a criminal offense for a circulator to fill in any blanks on behalf of the voter, unless the voter is “disabled” (the law doesn’t define “disabled”); (6) if a petition sheet contains even one signature that has a “material defect” the entire sheet is invalid (the law doesn’t define “material defect”).
There will be a trial next month. This is the type of lawsuit that requires considerable evidence. The lawsuit is filed in state court because the state Constitution protects the initiative process, so the plaintiffs will argue that the new restrictions violate the State Constitution. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.
