New Mexico State Senator Howie Morales (D-Silver City) will introduce a bill in the 2013 legislative session to let candidates running in a primary qualify by paying a filing fee. Currently law requires petitions for access to a primary ballot in New Mexico. See this story.
On August 6, U.S. District Court Judge George C. Smith, a Reagan appointee, will hear Jolivette v Husted, southern district, 2:12-cv-603. Greg Jolivette submitted enough valid signatures to be on the November ballot as an independent candidate for State House, 51st district. Election officials still kept him off the ballot, because they say he was too recently a member of the Republican Party.
Ohio laws on who may qualify as an independent candidate are the vaguest laws in the U.S. Ohio does not have partisan registration. However, elections officials keep track of which party’s primary ballot a voter chooses. Jolivette did not vote in the Republican primary of March, 2012. But in 2011, he held himself out as a Republican and even started to petition onto the Republican primary ballot, but he then withdrew that Republican petition.
Ohio election law does not say an independent candidate must have had nothing to do with a political party. It just bans “sore losers”. Jolivette argues not only that he qualifies as an independent, but that in any event the law is hopelessly vague. See this story about the case. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Here is a description of the court hearing held August 3 in Phoenix, over whether the initiative for a top-two open primary should be on the ballot. Opponents argued that it violates the single-subject rule. The only argument on the single-subject rule that seemed to give the judge pause is the point that the initiative unnecessarily abolishes elections for party office. The very last paragraph of the article mentions this.
The other states with top-two open primaries, Washington, California, and Louisiana, all continue to hold elections for party office.
On August 3, Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party filed their reply brief in Vermont lower state court, in Anderson v State of Vermont. The issue is whether a petitioning candidate should be kept off the November ballot, not because he didn’t obtain enough valid signatures, and not that he didn’t submit them in time, but because some town clerks didn’t check the petitions quickly. This reply brief goes beyond just technical issues and is an interesting read.
On August 3, the Michigan Supreme Court voted to keep a referendum on the November 2012 statewide ballot. The case is Stand Up for Democracy v Secretary of State, 145387. The Board of State Canvassers had kept it off the ballot because the law says such petitions must be in 14 size font and this petition apparently had print that was somewhat smaller, although that is not settled and different experts have different opinions. Computerized printing has made such standards somewhat arbitrary. Here is the opinion.
Justice Mary Beth Kelly wrote the controlling opinion. She feels the font size was correct. Three other justices did not, but they felt that substantial compliance is sufficient. Those four, voting together even though they don’t agree with each, provide the four votes to keep the measure on the ballot. Three other justices felt that the font size was too small and that strict compliance is necessary. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
