As had been previously reported, on May 20, the 9th circuit upheld the constitutionality of San Francisco’s version of Instant Runoff Voting. The time for IRV opponents to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court has passed, but no such appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed. The decision of the 9th circuit, Dudum v Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098, is the final decision in that case.
Pollsters Pat Caddell and Douglas Schoen have this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal of August 25, arguing that 2012 will probably see a strong presidential candidate running outside the two major parties. Thanks to Jack Dean for the link. Hot Air, a conservative politics blog, has this commentary on the Caddell-Schoen piece. Newsmax has this commentary.
On August 23, U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright ruled that California’s law, allowing some candidates to list a party label, but not allowing others to do so, nor even to use the ballot label “independent”, is constitutional. Here is the 17-page ruling. The legal analysis of the merits of the case is short and begins on page 11.
The opinion says that California has an interest in maintaining the distinction between qualified parties and unqualified parties, and cites various opinions from systems in which parties nominate candidates. This part of the opinion does not acknowledge that California’s law for congressional elections, and state elections, is not a system in which parties nominate candidates. Instead, the only purpose of labels on the ballot is to give the voters an inkling of the candidate’s partisan leanings. The opinion quotes the U.S. Supreme Court opinion Burdick v Takushi which says that nondiscriminatory ballot access laws are constitutional if they pass the reasonable basis test. But, the opinion does not mention that in Norman v Reed, issued the same year as Burdick v Takushi, the U.S. Supreme Court said discriminatory ballot access restrictions are subject to the more rigorous compelling interest test. The California law, letting some candidates use their preferred partisan self-description and not letting others do that, is discriminatory.
As to why the word “independent” should be barred, the decision only says, “The evidence shows that the restriction on the ability to state ‘independent’ on the ballot was institute for a legitimate state reason – namely, the State’s important regulatory and procedural interest in maintaining the distinction between ‘qualified’ and ‘non-qualified’ parties.” This conclusion does not follow; there is no connection between banning the word “independent” and making a distinction between qualified and non-qualified parties.
The opinion also upholds the restriction on counting write-in votes, equating a ban on counting write-ins with a ban on printing write-in space on the ballot. The opinion is not surprising, because Judge Wright had previously ruled in this same case that the challenged laws are constitutional. Notice of an appeal has already been filed. The case is Chamness v Bowen, cv11-01479. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On August 24, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the case State ex rel Quinn v Lorain County Board of Elections, 2011-1124. The case had been filed by an independent candidate for Mayor of Elyria, a city which uses partisan elections. The candidate, Tim Quinn, was kept off the general election ballot because he had voted in the primary. The election law does not say that independent candidates must not have voted in the primary. Sometimes Ohio election officials keep independent candidates off the ballot because they voted in the primary, and sometimes they don’t. It is very disappointing that the Supreme Court dismissed this case without even writing an opinion. See this story.
Just as the states of the United States have many election law disputes involving constitutional issues, so does the Cherokee Nation. That sovereign organization that co-exists within the United States has a September 24, 2011 election, and a recent Cherokee Nation Supreme Court decision is requiring the Nation’s election administrators to remove some voters from the rolls. See this story.
