On April 4, an ordinance of Gaines Township, Kent County, Michigan, restricting political signs to only twenty square feet, was declared unconstitutional. See this story about the case, which was written before the outcome was known. The plaintiff is a farmer, Vern Verduin, who had placed a large political sign on his own truck trailer, which was parked on his own property. The ACLU helped with the lawsuit. It is not known if the decision will be appealed. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

Early on April 9, the Maryland legislature adjourned for the year. Two bills to vastly increase the difficult of petitioning in Maryland failed to pass. They were HB 493 and SB 673. They had provided that signers of petitions must include their date of birth, and mandated that each page of the petition inform signers that all the information on the petition would be a public record. The bills also made it illegal for the circulator of the petition to sign a petition sheet as a voter. And it would have barred anyone from petitioning unless he or she had first taken a course provided by election officials. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.

On March 27, some voters in San Juan County, Washington, won a procedural victory in State Superior Court in White v Reed. This is a lawsuit arguing that San Juan County should not print unique barcodes on ballots because they could conceivably be used to violate secrecy in voting. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs, who are associated with the Green Party, do have standing. The Court also ruled that the barcodes are considered part of “voting system software” and cannot be used unless the state certifies the program that produces the bar codes.

There is still no decision on the issue of whether use of the barcodes could violate ballot secrecy. That will probably require a trial, and the Superior Court Judge postponed that until San Juan County and the Secretary of State have an opportunity to try to reverse the procedural ruling. The case is White v Reed, 10-2-05002-8. The decision relies partly on Bush v Gore. One of the arguments the plaintiffs make is that they are not treated equally because their county uses bar codes and most counties in Washington state do not.