On August 9, PhillyNow, a well-known Pennsylvania politics blog, posted this story about the efforts of the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition to get a hearing for SB 195, the ballot access improvement bill.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit against the Pennsylvania ballot access-challenge system is pending in the Third Circuit.
On August 9, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper asked Governor Pat McCrory to veto HB 589, the omnibus election law bill. See this story. Although Cooper is a Democrat, he is well-respected by members of both major parties. In 2012, no Republican ran against him. He is in his fourth term.
On August 9, Alabama election officials said that the deadline for minor party and independent candidates for the upcoming special legislative elections is October 8, not August 20. The revised Election Proclamation says the original date of August 20 was a “scrivener’s error.” Thanks to Joshua Cassity for this news.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, holds a partisan election for city office on November 5, 2013. Three independent candidates are being challenged because their petitions did not list any members of the “Substitution Committee.” Pennsylvania independent candidate petitions historically give the candidate or the minor party a chance to list members of this committee, just in case one of the candidates on the petition resigns. The substitution committee then has the authority to choose another candidate or candidates. This is how minor parties typically handle their presidential and vice-presidential petitions, because often the parties haven’t chosen their actual presidential and vice-presidential nominees when the petitioning period starts.
The three 2013 Harrisburg independent candidates are being challenged on the basis that they didn’t list any members of their substitution committees. The candidates say there is no logical need to require a substitution committee. If they choose not to run, they have no desire to have someone else replace them. See this story.
Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Libertarian Party had standing to challenge California laws that prohibit petitioners from working outside their home districts. The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case, called Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, back to the U.S. District Court, to decide the constitutionality of the residency requirement.
The Secretary of State then informed the U.S. Supreme Court that she intends to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit, and she obtained an extension of time in which to file her cert petition, to August 9. However, she has now decided not to file the cert petition after all. If the California legislature does not repeal the residency requirements, the U.S. District Court will rule on the constitutionality of the residency requirement.
