On March 6, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs in Los Angeles County Libertarian Party v Bowen have standing to challenge the residency requirement for petition circulators. The nine-page opinion, by Judge Susan Graber, reverses the U.S. District Court, which had said the plaintiffs do not have standing because the Secretary of State says the residency requirement for circulators is not enforced.

This is the first time a minor party has won a case in the Ninth Circuit, except for instances at which the major parties were also in the lawsuit, since 2003. The opinion does not address the constitutionality of the residency requirement for circulators, and it remands the case back to the U.S. District Court to make a decision on the law’s constitutionality. Because the state has already said it doesn’t enforce the law, it is obvious that either the U.S. District Court will now strike down the law, or else the legislature will repeal the residency requirement and the case will be moot. Senate Bill 213, introduced last month, repeals all petitioner residency requirements.

Ironically, on February 8, 2013, a U.S. District Court in Alaska had ruled that a professional petitioner who wants to circulate in Alaska, but who lives in Wisconsin, lacks standing to challenge Alaska’s ban on out-of-state circulators for initiatives. That case is now in the 9th circuit and is Raymond v Fenumiai, 13-35090.

The New York Daily News and other media are reporting that a substantial portion of contributions to the New York state Independence Party in recent months has been from the Republican Party and Republican State Senators. See this story. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

The New York Working Families Party was a subject of this New York Times story in the March 5 print edition, but the story is sympathetic to the Working Families Party, and the inclusion here of this link does not mean to suggest that the two stories in this post are equivalent.

The opening brief in Citizen Center v Gessler, 12-1414, is due on April 1, 2013 in the Tenth Circuit. This is the interesting case over whether the U.S. Constitution protects a secret ballot. The U.S. District Court had ruled on September 22, 2012, that nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires a secret ballot. The case had been filed originally to stop unique bar codes from being printed on Colorado ballots, because they make it physically possible for an employee of the elections office to learn how a particular voter voted.