California Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to San Diego County Republican Party’s Sample Ballot Inserts

On October 26, the California Supreme Court refused to hear Kunde v Seiler, S195849. This is the lawsuit over whether San Diego County election officials were correct when they let the Republican Party include campaign literature in the same envelope in which the government mailed sample ballots in May 2010 to Republican registrants. The election code lets parties include a self-addressed stamped envelope to make it easy for that voter to send a contribution to that party. The State Court of Appeals had ruled on July 13, 2011, that the law inplicitly permits party literature as well. The State Court of Appeals decision will now stand.

Progressive Party Nominates Candidate in Oregon Special Election for U.S. House

The Progressive Party, which is ballot-qualified in Oregon, has nominated Steven Reynolds to run for U.S. House, First District, in the special election being held early next year. See this story. The Libertarian Party had already nominated someone for this seat as well. The Independent Party is in the process of holding a mail ballot primary to decide whether to cross-endorse another candidate or run its own nominee.

The Oregon Progressive Party has never before nominated its own member for a U.S. House race, although in 2010 it cross-endorsed three Green Party U.S. House nominees. The party was formed in 2008 to serve as a ballot access vehicle for Ralph Nader’s independent run. When it was first formed, it was called the Peace Party, but then it changed its name to the Progressive Party.

California Supreme Court Says Initiative Proponents Have Standing to Defend their Measure, if State Won’t Defend It

On November 17, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that proponents of a state initiative have standing to defend their initiative in court, if their initiative passes, but a trial court invalidates their measure and the then state government refuses to appeal. Perry v Brown, S189476.

As a result, it is likely that the Ninth Circuit will now begin the process of deciding whether California’s state constitutional provision barring same-sex marriages violates the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. District Court had said the ban does violate the U.S. Constitution, and the 9th circuit had delayed taking up the appeal until the State Supreme Court answered the question about standing for initiative proponents.