Texas currently has four ballot-qualified parties, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Green. Any party that is not now qualified must submit a petition, due in June 2012. But, it may not circulate the petition unless it submits a form no later than January 2, 2012.
So far, the only unqualified parties that have filed this form are the Constitution, Generation, Christian, and Internet Action Parties. It is expected that Americans Elect, and probably others, will file the form soon.
The Virginia Republican Party, if it wished, could probably win a lawsuit against the ban on write-ins in its own 2012 presidential primary. Winning against the ban on write-ins would make it possible for Virginia voters who vote in that primary to have a free choice of candidates.
The Virginia Constitution, Article II, section 3, says, “In elections other than primary elections, provision shall be made whereby votes may be cast for persons other than the listed candidates or nominees.” Because this section protects write-in voting in general elections, all Virginia ballot-counting machines are able to handle write-in votes.
The only possible purpose for excluding primaries from the write-in guarantee is to protect the interest of parties. But a party that wants write-ins in its own primary ought to have the constitutional clout to demand it. The U.S. Supreme Court has protected the ability of political parties to control their own nomination process, especially in the recent party rights decision, New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008). Also, Virginia state courts have always recognized a strong role for political parties in the nominations process.
On December 26, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli wrote in his own newsletter that he recommends that the legislature lower the presidential primary petition requirement. Specifically, he advocates that the current 10,000 requirement be changed so that only 1,100 signatures are required, with at least 100 from each U.S. House district. See here. Thanks to Tony Roza and Carey Campbell for this news.
On January 17, a U.S. District Court in Virginia will hear arguments in Lux v Judd, which challenges the Virginia ballot access law that circulators for district office must live in that district. It will be interesting to see if the recent commentary on Virginia presidential primary ballot access influences the oral argument at that hearing.
U.S. Senator Ben Cardin’s bill to expand voting rights in federal elections for ex-felons is described on the Senator’s web page here. The text of his bill, S2017, is still not available on the Library of Congress’s web page, but the bill is fully described at the link. The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
On December 22, the Washington state Democratic and Republican Parties filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing that the state must provide elections in 2012 for Precinct Committee officers. The case will be heard on March 23, 2012, at 9 a.m., in Thurston County Superior Court in Olympia. The case is Washington State Democratic Central Committee v Washington Secretary of State, 11-2-02701-2. UPDATE: here is the complaint.
Washington state election laws say these elections should be held for qualified parties. Only the Democratic and Republican Parties are ballot-qualified. The state had intended to hold these elections simultaneously with a March presidential primary, but then the state decided not to hold a presidential primary, and it canceled plans for elections for party office as well.
The state formerly held Precinct Committee Officer elections at the general election, but a U.S. District Court ruled last year that electing party officers in the general election violates freedom of association for those parties, because in effect the entire electorate, not just party members, were choosing party officers.
The other two states with top-two election systems, Louisiana and California, continue to hold elections for party officers. Louisiana and California use elections in which only party members can vote on party officers. It is easier for Louisiana and California to do this, than it is for Washington state, because Louisiana and California still hold presidential primaries simultaneously with the party officer elections.
