On October 18, Massachusetts holds a special election to fill the empty State House seat, in the Berkshire 3rd district. So far, Green Party nominee Mark Miller has more funds in his campaign bank account than any of his three opponents. He is opposed by a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent. See this story. Miller ran for this seat as a Green last year, and polled 45% of the vote in a two-person race against a Democrat.
On September 21, California filed this brief with the 9th circuit, in Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, 11-55316. The issue is the state law that says circulators for candidate petitions (for district office, such as U.S. House or state legislature) must live in the relevant district. The state concedes that the residency requirement for circulators is unconstitutional. But it says the lawsuit should be dismissed because the Secretary of State doesn’t enforce it. The petition form requires circulators to sign a statement at the bottom of the form “under penalty of perjury” that they do live in the district.
To establish that the Secretary of State doesn’t enforce the residency requirement for circulators, the state also asks the Court to take judicial notice of a 1980 ruling from a past Secretary of State, which says that signatures on a petition should count, even if the circulator isn’t a registered voter. But the 1980 ruling also says, “A circulator who completes a false affidavit is subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or, where applicable, violating Elections Code 29780, and suspected violators should be reported by local elections officials to the proper authorities.” Here is the state’s request that the court take judicial notice of the 1980 ruling, which includes a link to that 1980 ruling. It also includes a link to a January 2010 statement by the current Secretary of State that she still adheres to the 1980 ruling.
According to this story, the Ohio legislature is considering the idea of having primaries for state and local office, in 2012, in March; and having the presidential primary and congressional primaries in May. Thanks to Josh Putnam of Frontloading HQ for the link.
On September 21, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, a Bush Jr. appointee, upheld the parts of the federal Voting Rights Act that require certain states to pre-clear election law changes with the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department. The case is Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, D.C., 1:10cv-651. Here is the decision.
The Alabama case is one of several constitutional challenges to this part of the Voting Rights Act. A few months ago, another U.S. District Court had in Washington, D.C., had also upheld this part of the act, in a case filed by some North Carolina voters. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news and for the link to the decision, which is 151 pages long. UPDATE: a third case challenging the pre-clearance parts of the Voting Rights Act, State of Arizona v Holder, happens to be before Judge Bates, so that increases the odds that the Arizona challenge will also lose. See this story.
This Wall Street Journal story says the U.S. Justice Department has asked a U.S. District Court to order New York state to hold its primary (for office other than president) on a date earlier than September. This occurred in an ongoing lawsuit by the federal government against New York state, to enforce federal law that tells states to mail foreign absentee ballots no later than 45 days before a primary, or before any election for federal office.
