On June 22, the Illinois Libertarian Party filed this brief in Libertarian Party of Illinois v State Board of Elections, pending in U.S. District Court. The issues are the June 25 petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties and independent candidates, and also the unique state law that requires newly-qualifying parties to submit a full slate of candidates.
The New York Assembly passed A7492, the “Voter Friendly Ballot Act” on June 21, just before adjourning. Unfortunately the bill did not make any headway in the State Senate. The bill would have provided that the names of candidates for the same office should appear on the same column or row. It had many other provisions to make the ballot clearer and more easier to read. It also eliminated party emblems, probably to make more room for other information.
The bill passed in the Assembly by a vote of 143-1. The only “no” vote was Assemblymember Peter D. Lopez (R-Schoharie).
On June 20, Arizona filed this reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v Gonzalez, the lawsuit over whether Arizona can require voters who use the federal voter registration form to answer questions that are not on that form. It is somewhat likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on Monday, June 25, whether to stay the decision of the 9th circuit in this case, pending possible full review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the Ninth Circuit decision is not stayed, voter registration groups can get back to work in Arizona, using the federal form without supplementary state-mandated questions.
In 2010, both the Libertarian Party, and the Anti-Prohibition Party, qualified for the general election ballot in New York. New York generally permits candidates to be the nominee of multiple political parties. However, New York will not print the name of a candidate nominated for the same office by two different unqualified parties on the ballot twice. By contrast, if two or even three qualified parties nominate the same candidate for the same office, that candidate is listed on the ballot multiple times.
In 2010, both the Libertarian Party and the Anti-Prohibition Party nominated Randy Credico for U.S. Senate. When the State Board of Elections told him that he could not be listed on the ballot twice, he sued. Almost two years later, the case has an oral argument date. It will be argued in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn on September 19, 2012. The case is Credico v New York State Board of Elections, 1:10cv-4555.
The 2009 session of the Vermont legislature moved the independent candidate petition deadline from September to June. This move has reduced choices on this year’s November general election. The Justice Party, the Constitution Party, and the Green Party, all made serious attempts to obtain the needed 1,000 signatures in time for the June 14 deadline, but all three failed. The only presidential petition that succeeded was the petition of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. The problem is not entirely collecting 1,000 valid signatures; it is turning them in to the town clerks and having the town clerks verify the signatures in time for the Secretary of State’s deadline.
The Libertarian Party, Liberty Union, and the Progressive Party were already ballot-qualified and did not need to petition. The Progressive Party generally stays out of the presidential election, so, without legal action, the only choices on the Vermont November ballot for President will be: President Obama, Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson, Peta Lindsay, and whomever Liberty Union nominates. Generally, Liberty Union nominates whomever the Socialist Party nominates. If that pattern occurs this year, then Stewart Alexander will be on the ballot.
Five choices on the presidential ballot is unusually low for Vermont. That is the smallest number of choices for President in Vermont since 1972. A lawsuit is currently pending in the Vermont Supreme Court against the June 14 petition deadline, but it is not clear that that court will rule in time for anyone to get relief. The plaintiff, Jerry Trudell, had tried to be an independent candidate for Congress in 2010. Because that election is in the past, there had been no request for an expedited hearing in the Vermont Supreme Court.
