Illinois Bill to Reduce Number of Signatures for Independent Candidates, but Make Deadline Earlier

Posted on by February 8, 2013
Reply

Illinois Representative Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago) has introduced HB 1269, which substantially lowers the number of signatures needed for independent candidates. However, it makes the petition deadline earlier, and requires a shorter petitioning period.

Currently independent candidates for statewide office need 25,000 valid signatures, due in late June. The petition must be completed in the 90 days prior to the deadline. Independent candidates for district office need a petition of 5% of the last vote cast.

HB 1269 lowers the statewide petition to 5,000 signatures; the U.S. House petition to the same number of signatures needed for primary candidates (one-half of 1% of that party’s last general election vote, which is always less than 2,000); the State Senate petition to 1,000 signatures; the State House petition to 500 signatures. Unfortunately, it moves the deadline to 75 days after the March primary. If this bill had been in effect in 2012, the deadline would have been June 3 instead of June 25. Also the bill says petitions can’t start to circulate until 75 days before the deadline.

The bill does not change the petition requirements for the nominees of unqualified parties. Thanks to Dan Johnson for this news.

All Interesting Wyoming Election Law Bills Fail to Pass

Posted on by February 7, 2013
Reply

Election law bills in Wyoming that would have made interesting substantive changes have failed to pass by the necessary deadline. SF 108 would have switched Wyoming to a top-two open primary system. HB 96 would have made it easier for a party to remain ballot-qualified. HB 141 would have prevented members of one party from switching their party registration on primary day so as to vote in another party’s primary, although it would have retained the ability of independent voters to switch to any party on primary day for the purpose of voting in that party’s primary.

One bill that did pass is one of the Secretary of State’s omnibus election bills, HB 2. It says that independent candidates must show their petition to the Secretary of State and get it approved, before beginning to circulate it.

New York City Council Candidate in Special Election Challenges Petitions of Most of His Opponents, but Challenge Fails

Posted on by February 7, 2013
Reply

New York city is holding a special election for city council, 31st district, on February 19. In New York city, even though elections are partisan, special city council elections are conducted without party nominees. All candidates appear on the ballot with their party label, if they obtain at least 450 valid signatures. Nine candidates filed, but one candidate, Jacques Leandre, then challenged the petitions of six of his opponents. See this story. The story does not explain the basis for the challenge. Leandre, in defense of his action, reminds people that President Obama challenged his opponents’ petitions in 1996 when he first ran for public office. Obama challenged all his opponents off the primary ballot when he was running for State Senate.

Only one of the candidates has been knocked off the ballot. See this story.

District of Columbia’s Appeals Court Won’t Block Seizure of $56,928 from Ralph Nader’s Bank Account Over Pennsylvania 2004 Challenge

Posted on by February 7, 2013
Reply

On January 25, 2013, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied Ralph Nader’s request for a rehearing in Nader v Serody, 09-cv-906. This means that the individuals who challenged Ralph Nader’s petition in Pennsylvania in 2004 are now free to obtain $56,928 from Nader’s bank account in Washington, D.C. However, the order does not go into effect until April 25, to give Nader an opportunity to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block the fund seizure. It is possible Nader will indeed ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals had ruled against Nader in this matter on May 10, 2012, but Nader had asked for a reconsideration, which had been pending for over eight months. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is analogous to the State Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; it is the highest court in the District’s own court system, and should not be confused with the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

Strict Massachusetts Primary Ballot Access Law Threatens Republicans in Special U.S. Senate Election

Posted on by February 7, 2013
Reply

Republicans who wish to get on the Republican primary ballot for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate special election must obtain 10,000 valid signatures by February 27. According to this story, there is some concern that no Republican will be able to fulfill the task. Of course, the legislature is sitting, and is capable of passing ballot access reform, and making the bill effective immediately. UPDATE: here is an article about the coming blizzard in New England that will make petitioning even more difficult.

Here are the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s instructions for candidates in the special election. The nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, also need 10,000 valid signatures, but not until April 3.

It is conceivable that any candidate running in the primary might file a lawsuit to reduce the number of signatures. The decision of the U.S. District Court in Illinois dated February 1, 2013, called Jones v McGuffage, said that it is unconstitutional to impose the same number of signatures in a special election (with limited time to collect the signatures) than in a regularly-scheduled election. If this were a regularly-scheduled election, primary candidates could obtain their signatures over a three-month period. Thanks to Thomas MacMillan for the link to the news story.