Opening Brief Filed in Vermont Supreme Court in Independent Candidate Petition Deadline Lawsuit

Posted on by April 10, 2012
Reply

On April 10, Jerry Trudell filed his opening brief in the Vermont Supreme Court in Trudell v Markowitz. This is the lawsuit that challenges the petition deadline for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties. The 2009 session of the legislature moved the deadline from September to June. The primary is in August.

The lower Vermont state court had upheld the deadline, in a decision that did not even discuss the holding in Anderson v Celebrezze, the U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1983 that said early petition deadlines for independent candidates are unconstitutional. Instead the lower court based the decision on a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Storer v Brown, which did not even concern petition deadlines for independent candidates. Instead, Storer v Brown upheld a law saying no one could be an independent candidate if he or she had been a member of a qualified party during the preceding year.

The appeal in Trudell’s case was helped by the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE), which helped raise money for the costs of preparing the transcript. Some of the readers of this blog helped with that fund appeal.

The 2009 legislature didn’t even carve out an exception for independent presidential candidates. Thus, the Green Party is severely disadvantaged in Vermont. It is not a ballot-qualified party, so it can only place its presidential nominee on the ballot by using the independent/minor party petition process. But the party won’t know who its national nominees will be until July 15, too late for the petition.

Missouri Ballot Access Bill Advances

Posted on by April 10, 2012
Reply

On April 10, the Missouri Senate Elections Committee unanimously passed HB 1236, the bill that improves ballot access for newly-qualifying parties. The bill had already passed the House. It fixes the typographical error that forces groups to list their candidates for presidential elector on their petition if they intend to run a presidential nominee that year. The error is bizarre, because such a group doesn’t need to list its candidates for other office on the petition.

Oregon Progressive Party Nominates Rocky Anderson for President

Posted on by April 10, 2012
Reply

On April 8, the Oregon Progressive Party state committee nominated Rocky Anderson for President. The party had nominated Ralph Nader for President in Oregon in 2008. Back then, the party’s name was the Peace Party, but it has since changed its name. Oregon, like many states, lets ballot-qualified parties change their names.

On April 10, Ralph Nader appeared at a press conference with Rocky Anderson, in Portland, Oregon. Nader said he supports the decision of the Oregon Progressive Party, and also said he supports Rocky Anderson for President. Nader does not endorse candidates, and did not use the verb “endorse” at the press conference. Nader feels that when someone endorses a candidate, that means the endorser agrees with all of that candidate’s positions. Nader feels that the verb “support” does not have that characteristic.

California State Court Won’t Enjoin Proposition 14 Now, but Keeps Minor Party Ballot Access Issue Alive

Posted on by April 10, 2012
Reply

On April 10, California Superior Court Lawrence John Appel, of Alameda County, heard oral arguments in Rubin v Bowen, the case filed last year by the Peace & Freedom, Libertarian, and Green Parties. The judge won’t issue any injunction against the operation of Proposition 14, the top-two system. However, even though he feels the law is facially constitutional, he is allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint and make an as-applied challenge. The next status conference is on July 10. By then the results of the June 5, 2012 California primary will be known.

The judge was very familiar with all the relevant cases. He knew, without attorneys for either side mentioning it, that the March 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision Washington State Grange v Washington State Republican Party contains a footnote eleven (the judge mentioned the footnote by number) saying the Court’s decision does not resolve, or deal with, the ballot access issue. The 9th circuit decision of January 19, 2012, in that same case, erroneously said the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that top-two does not violate any of the ballot access precedents. The 9th circuit judges knew less about the U.S. Supreme Court output on this than Judge Appel does.

The April 10 hearing was the first time that any court has held oral arguments over whether top-two systems violate the voting rights of minor party members and voters. The previous litigation over top-two has either dealt with two particular aspects of California’s top-two system (labels on the ballot and write-ins), or has dealt only with freedom of association. Attorneys for the minor parties argued that the 9th circuit 2012 decision does not control this case because: (1) California’s primary is in early June whereas Washington state’s is in late August; (2) the California Constitution gives greater protection to free speech rights than the U.S. Constitution does. Attorneys for California, and for the intervenors who support Proposition 14, denied that the California Constitution gives any more rights than the U.S. Constitution does in the elections context.