California Supreme Court Asked to Hear Case on Duration of Residency Requirement for Legislative Candidates

On March 29, Heidi Fuller asked the California Supreme Court to hear her constitutional election law case. Here is the petition. The California Constitution, since 1879, has said no one can run for the legislature who has not lived in the district for a year before filing. However, since 1973, the California Secretary of State has not enforced this part of the Constitution. She says the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution.

However, federal case law on duration of residency requirements for candidates is virtually unanimous that these requirements do not violate the U.S. Constitution. Fuller meets the duration of residency requirement, but one of her opponents in 2010 did not. She sued to have the state Constitutional provision enforced. The Superior Court held that courts have jurisdiction for a lawsuit like this, but ruled that the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution. The State Court of Appeals held that courts cannot even hear a case like this, because only the legislature can decide if a candidate should be, or should have been, on a primary ballot to run for the legislature. The problem with this is that it would leave open no barrier to an underage candidate for the legislature to be on the ballot, or a candidate who does not even live in California. Fuller is asking the State Supreme Court to take this interesting case.

Arizona Tinkers with Public Funding

This article describes some small changes in Arizona’s program for public funding of candidates for public office. Opponents of public funding gave up their plan to ask voters to defund the program. In return, HB 2779 is likely to pass. It will end the tax credit for taxpayers who give donations to the program. Supporters of the public funding program say the fund doesn’t need that money anyway.

In other Arizona legislative news, on April 4, the Senate defeated HB 2826, which would have told all municipalities that they must hold their elections in even-numbered years. The bill had already passed the House. However, on April 5, the Senate agreed to reconsider the bill.

Illinois Libertarian Party Sues to Overturn June 25 Filing Deadline, and “Full-Slate” Requirement

On April 5, the Illinois Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Chicago, charging that the June 25 petition deadline is too early, at least for Presidential candidates. The lawsuit also attacks the law that requires newly-qualifying parties (but not established parties) to run a full slate of candidates. The lawsuit is Libertarian Party of Illinois v State Board of Elections, civ. 12-2511. Here is the complaint.

South Dakota State Courts Adjudicate Five Primary Petition Challenges

South Dakota state courts must quickly decide whether or not five petitions have enough valid signatures. These petition challenges all relate to whether certain candidates should be on the primary ballots of the Republican and Democratic Parties. One challenge concerns a congressional candidate, and the others to legislative candidates. The primary is June 5. See this story. One case has already been adjudicated, and the candidate was found to lack four valid signatures.

Virginia Governor Signs Bill, Legalizing Out-of-District Petitioners

On April 4, Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell signed HB 1133, which legalizes out-of-district petitioners. This is the first ballot access improvement Virginia has made since 2001.

HB 1133 only passed because a U.S. District Court earlier this year ruled the in-district residency requirement unconstitutional. The case was Lux v Rodrigues, and it had been filed in 2010.