Nevada requires that statewide initiatives obtain a substantial number of signatures from each U.S. House district in the state. On March 14, the 9th circuit upheld the Nevada distribution requirement for initiative petitions. Angle v Miller, 10-16707. Here is the 20-page decision. The decision was not surprising. As noted in the decision, there are no precedents invalidating distribution requirements for statewide petitions, if the units are of equal population.
On March 12, a California Superior Court in Shasta County issued a 4-page order in Shasta County Citizens for Justice v City of Shasta Lake, cv-174130. Recently, a recall petition was circulated to recall a city council member in the city of Shasta Lake. The councilmember obtained evidence that someone who is not a resident of Shasta Lake helped circulate the petition. UPDATE: here is the decision.
The councilmember asked the court to order the city not to hold the recall. But the court declined to stop that election. The judge wrote, “Even assuming there was evidence that signatures were gathered by a non-resident circulator, there is no statutory or constitutional authority for the Court to enjoin a recall election on the ground that signatures on a recall petition were obtained by a non-resident petition circulator. The statutory scheme for remedies relating to improper signature gathering is to hold the circulator accountable, not the signator.”
California and Pennsylvania are the only states that still try to enforce in-district, or in-jurisdiction, residence requirements on circulators. Recently, some California elections officials have warned circulators of in-lieu of filing petitions that the circulator must be a resident of the county and district. This has been frustrating, because the constitutionality of the California in-district residency requirement is pending in federal court, and the Secretary of State has told the court that the residency requirement is not enforced. However, she has not communicated that to county elections officials.
Maine Representative Les Fossel has introduced LD 1879, which would require “party formation committees” to meet the same campaign contribution disclosure laws that other types of political groups must follow. The bill is co-sponsored by nine other legislators, including the Speaker of the House, Robert Nutting. All of the sponsors are Republicans except for Representative Teresa Hayes, who is a Democrat.
Maine law already provides that when a group wishes to qualify a new party for the ballot, it must submit a Declaration of Intent, which must be signed by at least ten voters. The provisions of LD 1879 seem to only relate to those ten individuals. If the intent of the bill is to require Americans Elect to disclose the names of contributors who are paying for petitioning, the bill seems powerless to accomplish that, and this would seem to be true, even if the bill had been enacted in the past and was already in effect. There seems to be no reason to believe that the contributions for paid petitioners would necessarily go through the ten individuals who signed the “Declaration of Intent” to qualify a new party. The existing law, section 303, says, “Ten or more voters who are not enrolled in a party qualified under section 301 must file a declaration of intent to form a party with the Secretary of State”, but nothing says that those ten individuals are necessarily the people who are arranging for paid petitioners.
On March 13, attorneys for the Tennessee Secretary of State asked the U.S. District Court to stay parts of its February 3, 2012 order in Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett. Specifically, the Secretary of State wants the court to stay the parts of the decision that put the Green Party and the Constitution Party on the 2012 ballot. Also, the Secretary of State wants to stay the part of the U.S. District Court order that says Tennessee must use a random method to determine the order of parties on the ballot. Here is the state’s brief.
The state argues that the Constitution Party and the Green Party have not shown a modicum of voter support.
According to a source within Americans Elect, Jon Huntsman will seek the Americans Elect presidential nomination, and Evan Bayh is willing to be his running mate. Huntsman was Governor of Utah 2004-2008. Bayh was Indiana Governor 1988-1996, and U.S. Senator 1998-2010. Huntsman and Bayh have not told Americans Elect leaders that they will seek the nomination.
Because Huntsman is a Republican and Bayh is a Democrat, the proposed ticket is deemed “balanced” by the Americans Elect bylaws. If Huntsman wins the on-line Americans Elect presidential primary, and Bayh becomes his running mate, the Americans Elect board would have no ability to contradict the results of the on-line primary. Of course, Huntsman and Bayh are the type of candidates whom the founders of Americans Elect would wish to see nominated in any event.
