This Baltimore Sun story interviews Maryland Green Party and Libertarian Party leaders about yesterday’s State Court of Appeals ruling that invalidated their petitions.
Reply
On May 22, the Michigan House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee passed some election law bills, but angry protestors in the room made it necessary for marshalls to escort some members of the Committee out of the hearing room. See this story. The bills require government photo-ID to vote absentee, and place restrictions on groups that wish to register voters, and make it more difficult in some circumstances for local governments to retain control over their spending and budgetary authority. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
According to Mark Seidenberg, the American Independent Party, a ballot-qualified party in California, will hold its presidential nominating convention in Sacramento on August 11, 2012, instead of the previously announced date of June 8.
Between 1992 and 2007, the American Independent Party functioned as the California unit of the Constitution Party. However, in 2008, the American Independent Party did not nominate the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate, and instead nominated Alan Keyes, who had sought the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination but who had not received the Constitution Party nomination.
On May 16, U.S. District Court Judge Louise W. Flanagan struck down North Carolina’s provision for extra public funding for judicial candidates who have privately-funded opponents who raise a great deal of campaign contributions, or who are the beneficiaries of large independent expenditures on their behalf. The case is North Carolina Right to Life PAC v Leake, 5:11-cv-472, eastern district.
The decision was no surprise, because the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled last year in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett, that this type of public funding is unconstitutional. The only real issue in the recent North Carolina case is whether the state could defend itself by saying it no longer pays this kind of extra public funding. The state said, since it won’t make such payments, the case is moot. But the judge said the case is not moot just because the government promises not to follow the program. The opinion says, “Dismissal on mootness grounds is inappropriate if the defendant voluntarily ceases the allegedly improper behavior but is free to return to it at any time.” Thanks to the Center for Competitive Elections for this news.
On May 21, a lower state court in South Carolina removed three more Democrats from the June 12 primary ballot, because they did not file their Statement of Economic Activity in March. They join approximately 180 other major party members who have also been removed from the Democratic and Republican primary ballots for the same reason. See this story.