Procedural Victory in Vermont Petition Deadline Lawsuit

Posted on by May 17, 2011
1

On May 9, a Superior Court in Vermont again rejected the state’s request to dispense with the trial, in Trudell v State of Vermont. This is the lawsuit, filed last year, against Vermont’s June petition deadline for independent candidates. The Superior Court Judge had already ruled twice before in this case that the state cannot prevail unless it submits evidence that the June deadline is needed for a legitimate state purpose. Vermont had always had September petition deadlines for independent candidates until 2009. The state so far has been unwilling to present evidence. First it tried to get the case dismissed without hearing any evidence, and then it had sought to appeal to the State Supreme Court in advance of the trial.

Of course, after the trial, the state will be free to appeal to the State Supreme Court if it loses and if it wishes to appeal. The case is in Washington County, 612-8-10. The plaintiff does not argue that the deadline should again be in September. A rational deadline would be in August, simultaneous with the primary (for office other than President). Here is the 2-page decision.

California Special U.S. House Election, May 17

Posted on by May 17, 2011
9

California voters choose a replacement for Congresswoman Jane Harman on May 17. Harman had been representing the voters of the 36th U.S. House district in western Los Angeles County, but she resigned. Most observers believe that none of the 16 candidates will poll as much as 50%, so there will be a run-off on July 12.

Jon Fleischman has this commentary about the election.

Texas Bill Advances, Would Improve Most Petition Deadlines

Posted on by May 17, 2011
1

The Texas House will soon vote on SB 100, which moves the primary (for all office, president and other office as well) from the first Tuesday in March, to the first Tuesday in April. The bill also moves the run-off primary to the third Tuesday in June.

If this bill is signed into law, the petition deadline for new parties, and for non-presidential independent candidates, will improve. Currently, the petition deadline for new parties is in late May, but the bill would cause that deadline to move to late June. Also, currently the petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates is in early May, but it would move to late July.

A peculiarity in the bill is that the independent presidential petition would continue to be in early May. Texas already has the nation’s earliest independent presidential petition, by far. If that deadline is challenged in court in the future, it will be very difficult for Texas to explain why it needs an independent presidential petition deadline that is more than two months earlier than the petition deadline for other independent candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1983 in Anderson v Celebrezze that the Constitution requires states to have easier ballot access for presidential candidates than for candidates for other office. Thanks to Frontloading HQ for the news about SB 100.

California Secretary of State Issues Extraordinarily Hostile Ruling on Deadline to Qualify a New Party

Posted on by May 16, 2011
9

On May 3, the California Secretary of State released a letter to Americans Elect, which says, “Our office recommends that petition signatures be filed with those (county) officials on or before September 16, 2011.” The letter is referring to the petition to qualify Americans Elect as a new party in California. Furthermore, this part of the letter assumes that AB 80 will pass. AB 80 moves the presidential primary from February 2012 to June 2012. It has already passed the Assembly unanimously.

The letter says that if AB 80 does not pass, “our office recommends that petition signatures be filed with those officials on or before May 25, 2011.”

There are several problems with the Secretary of State’s letter: (1) the letter seems to assume that political parties in California must qualify in time for the presidential primary, as opposed to the primary for other office. But, there is a precedent in California in which a newly qualifying party submitted its petition in time for the direct (non-presidential) primary, but not in time for the presidential primary. That precedent was set by the Liberty Party in 1932, when the California presidential primary was in May but the primary for other office was in August; (2) the California law does not require newly-qualifying parties to submit a petition by any particular date that is earlier than 135 days before the primary. That deadline (assuming AB 80 passes) will be January 22, 2012. There is no authority in California election law for an earlier deadline. When the Secretary of State of Ohio created a deadline for new party petitions by fiat in 2007, a U.S. District Court in Ohio struck down the Ohio Secretary’s deadline on the grounds that the U.S. Constitution’s election clause says only state legislatures may create rules for federal elections; (3) the letter ignores the case law that early petition deadlines for new parties to qualify for the ballot are unconstitutional. Federal and state courts in 15 states have struck down qualifying deadlines for new parties that were earlier than May of the election year. These decision have been based on four U.S. Supreme Court opinions, Williams v Rhodes, Jenness v Fortson, Mandel v Bradley, and Anderson v Celebrezze.

Thanks to Irregular Times for the link to the letter.