A team of experienced attorneys and law school students have drafted this cert petition in Greene v Bartlett, a challenge to the North Carolina ballot access law for independent candidates for U.S. House. The petition will be filed in a few days. Read the text here.
The Virginia legislature still hasn’t drawn new U.S. House district boundaries, even though state law says that this job must be done by January 1 of any election year following a new census. Virginia law regarding petitions for the presidential candidates of unqualified parties, and independent presidential candidates, says that these petitions must carry the names of presidential elector candidates. Furthermore, candidates for presidential elector have a residency requirement; the petition must list one elector candidate from each district, plus the two at-large electors.
Because no Virginia resident can know which district he or she will be living in, until after the new districts are drawn, it is impossible for a group, or an independent presidential candidate, to state to circulate the petition. The law says these petitions may start to circulate on January 1 of the presidential election year, but in practice, in 2012 so far, they cannot circulate yet. Virginia does permit stand-in presidential candidates, so if it weren’t for the presidential elector residency problem, any unqualified parties could be circulating petitions for president now. The only qualified parties in Virginia since 1997 have been the Democratic and Republican Parties.
The Virginia election code seems to discriminate against unqualified parties and independent presidential candidates, relative to qualified parties. The law seems to have no requirement that the presidential elector candidates nominated by the qualified parties need live in any particular district. Thanks to Bill Redpath for this news.
The redistricting delay also subtracts from the available petitioning period for candidates for U.S. House. Although a candidate for U.S. House need not live in the district, the circulators must live in the district. The district residency requirement is being litigated.
On January 9, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Haynes, Jr., will hear Green Party of Tennessee et al v Hargett, 3:11-cv-692. The hearing is at 3:30 p.m. in the federal courthouse in Nashville. The issue is whether the new ballot access law, passed in 2011, is constitutional. Judge Haynes had struck down the old law in 2010. The old law required 40,042 valid signatures by March of an election year, and the wording on the petition implied the signers are party members.
The new law requires 40,042 valid signatures, due on April 5. The petition no longer implies that all the signers are party members. The plaintiffs argue that the new law is virtually as bad as the old law, and is still unconstitutional. The 2010 decision is reported, 793 F.Supp.2d 1064, and seems to say that an April petition deadline would also be unconstitutional. No reported court decision has ever upheld a procedure for a new party to get on the ballot that had to be completed by April, if that procedure was the only way for a new party to get on the ballot.
On January 17, the 6th circuit will hear Kurita v The State Primary Board of the Tennessee Democratic Party, 08-6245. This is the interesting case over whether the Democratic Party had the authority in 2008 to declare that Senator Rosalind Kurita was not the nominee of the Democratic Party for one State Senate race, even though she had narrowly won the Democratic primary. Tennessee does not have registration by party and Democratic Party officials believed that Senator Kurita had benefited from the votes of individuals who were loyal to the Republican Party. The U.S. District Court had upheld the ability of the Democratic Party to say that the runner-up was the actual Democratic nominee.
A U.S. District Court in Missouri is expediting a lawsuit over how many signatures are needed to place local initiatives on the ballot in certain cities. The case is being expedited because the election is scheduled for April 3, 2012.
Missouri state law says a local initiative needs signatures equal to 25% of the last Mayoral vote. But in Poplar Bluff, voters don’t elect Mayors directly. Voters merely vote for city councilmembers, and they choose a Mayor. City officials determined that because there is no direct popular vote for Mayor, initiatives need 25% of the number of registered voters in Poplar Bluff. Proponents of an initiative sued because they say the number of signatures should be 25% of all the votes cast for City Council. Proponents of an initiative did collect enough valid signatures, if their theory of how to calculate the requirement is accepted. The case is Rexroat v City of Poplar Bluff, eastern district, 1:11-cv-224. Here is the complaint. The ACLU is handling the case.
The initiative concerns city-provided cable TV services. The city government is clearly hostile to the initiative. The city’s web page has a prominent place on the opening page, explaining how residents may delete their signatures from the petition. Thanks to Nate Carraw for this news.
On January 6, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party filed this brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in the party’s lawsuit over whether the law permits an unqualified party to list a stand-in presidential candidate on its ballot access petition. If the Libertarians win the case, the decision will help not only the Libertarian Party, but also will help Americans Elect and any other parties in 2012 or in future years that want to get started petitioning before they have chosen their presidential nominee.
