Georgia Secretary of State Declines to Stop January 26 Hearing on Obama Qualifications

On January 25, Georgia Secretary of State informed President Obama’s attorney that the Secretary of State will not interfere with the planned January 26 hearing on a challenge to the President’s ballot position on the March 6 Democratic presidential primary ballot. The President’s attorney had written a letter to Brian P. Kemp, Secretary of State of Georgia, and a Republican.

The attorney’s letter said, in part, “This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements…the Administrative Law judge has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the President in his capacity as a candidate. Only last week, he denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff’s counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now scheduled for January 26.” To read the entire letter, see here.

Secretary of State Kemp replied, “I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of State Administrative Hearings has handled the candidate challenges involving your client and advising me that you and your client will ‘suspend’ participation in the administrative proceeding. While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. sec. 21-2-5.

“As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.

“In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge. Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril. I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concern, and thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brian P. Kemp.” Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the documents. According to this story in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the President’s attorney will not attend.

Virginia Bill to Allow Write-in Votes in Primaries Advances

On January 24, the House Elections Subcommittee passed HB 1132, which says that write-in votes are permitted in primaries. Virginia already allows write-ins in general elections. The bill could not become effective in time for this year’s presidential primary.

The bill passed 4-2, on a party-line vote, with all Republicans voting “Yes” and all Democrats voting “No.” The yes votes were by Delegates John A. Cosgrove, S. Chris Jones, John A. Cox, and Margaret Ransone. The no votes were by Delegates Mark Sickles and Rosalyn Dance.

The same committee also passed HB 1133, which lets political parties set their own ballot access rules for presidential primaries, although the rules could not be more difficult than the law on how independent candidates get on the general election ballot. The vote was 3-2 and was not a party-line vote. Voting yes were two Republican Delegates (Cox and Ransone) and one Democratic Delegate (Dance). Voting no were one Republican Delegate (Cosgrove) and one Democratic Delegate (Sickles). Delegate Jones didn’t vote.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Invalidates 2011 Legislative Redistricting Plan

On January 25, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, said the new redistricting plan for both houses of the state legislature is unlawful. The order is only two pages, and does not say what is wrong with the plan, but says an explanation will follow. The Court also ordered that the old district lines be in place until a new plan is approved. Finally, the Court extended the petition deadline for candidates running in Pennsylvania primaries by two days, from February 14 to February 16.

The dissent is only one page. The legislative redistricting plan that was invalidated was created by the Pennsylvania Reapportionment Commission, which consists of the State Senate Majority Leader, the State Senate Minority Leader, the State House Majority Leader, the State House Minority Leader, and a fifth member who is chosen by the other four. However, when the other four can’t agree, then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appoints the fifth member. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has had to appoint the fifth member in 2011, 2001, and 1991.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is itself elected on a partisan basis, and has four Republicans and three Democrats. Generally, Democratic Party activists didn’t like the plan, and Republicans did. All three Democratic justices, and one Republican justice, voted against the redistricting plan. The other three Republican justices dissented. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news. Professor Hasen asks how long it will be before a voter files a lawsuit in federal court, saying the 2001 redistricting plan can’t be used because the districts aren’t equal in population, since they are based on the 2000 census, not the 2010 census.

Huffington Post Article on Candidates for President of France who were Not Born in France

The Huffington Post has this interesting article about presidential candidates in France who were not born in France. French election laws do not bar such candidacies, and several presidential candidates running this year were born in parts of Africa which were once French possessions, but which are now independent. The article mostly concerns the Green Party’s presidential candidate, Eva Joly, who was born in Norway.