Decision Likely on Monday, March 5, in Pennsylvania Congressional Petition Challenge

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has this story about the hearing in the case over whether Pennsylvania Congressman Jason Altmire has enough valid signatures to be on the Pennsylvania April 2012 primary ballot. Altmire is running for re-election, but his petition was challenged by another Democratic Congressman, Mark Critz. Both must run against each other in the primary in order to be re-elected. Pennsylvania won’t let circulators work outside their home district. The residency of one of Altmire’s circulators is contested, as the story explains. Nothing in the story hints that Altmire’s attorneys also argued that the residency requirement for circulators is unconstitutional, even though a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania in 2002 ruled that the in-district residency requirement for circulators is unconstitutional as applied to independent candidate petitions. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.

Modest Georgia Ballot Access Improvement Bill May Not be Dead After All UPDATE: Not True

According to Garland Favorito, one of Georgia’s leading ballot access activists, HB 949 is not dead, and will receive a vote on the House floor on Monday, March 5. The bill eases petitioning requirements for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, by approximately 25%. UPDATE: this post turned out not to be true. See the newer post made on March 5.

Arizona House Passes Bill Making Presidential Primary Ballot Access More Difficult

On February 20, the Arizona House passed a carelessly-written bill to make presidential primary ballot access more difficult. Currently, presidential candidates only need to file a declaration of candidacy and demonstrate that they have a committee promoting their candidacy in Arizona.

HB 2379 requires one of three methods to get a presidential candidate on a primary ballot: (1) 1,000 signatures of party members; or (2) evidence that the candidate has qualified for primary season matching funds; or (3) evidence that the candidate is on the ballot in at least 20 other states. UPDATE: if the candidate is seeking the nomination of a party with fewer than 50,000 registrants, any voter (regardless of partisan affilation) could sign.

In 2012, Arizona’s presidential primary was tied for being fifth earliest in the nation. When the Arizona presidential primary filing deadline passed, there weren’t even 20 other states that had determined which presidential primary candidates were on the ballot. Alternative (3), above, is thus utterly impractical. Also, a newly-formed party could not possibly have presidential primaries in as many as 20 states, because there are only 14 states in which it is possible for a newly-formed party (one formed in the odd year before a presidential election) to have a government-administered presidential primary.

Alternative (2), eligibility for primary season matching funds, is also not practical for a state with a primary as early as Arizona’s. When the filing deadline passed for getting on the presidential primary in Arizona, no one had yet qualified for primary season matching funds.

On February 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to hold action on this bill, so maybe it will be amended to make it more rational.