On May 13, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed HB 1242, an omnibus election law bill. Among other things, it provides that just in case the current Republican Secretary of State, Charlie White, is found not to have been eligible to run for that post in November 2010, nevertheless the Republican Party is still a ballot-qualified party. Indiana defines “party” as a group that polled at least 2% for Secretary of State. It is possible White will be found not to have been eligible to run, because he apparently registered at an address at which he did not live, and voted under that registration.

Even without HB 1242, it is very unlikely that any administrative agency, or any court, would have ruled that the Republican Party is no longer a qualified party. It is unquestionably true that the Republican Party met the vote test in 2010, and whether its nominee was eligible seems to be a separate question. But some had feared for the party’s status, so just to be safe, the provision was included in the bill.

On May 10, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff issued an 18-page opinion in Conservative Party v Walsh, southern district, 10 cv-6923. This is the lawsuit in which the Conservative Party of New York, the Working Families Party of New York, and the Taxpayers Party, sued to overturn a discriminatory New York state election policy on counting votes.

New York permits two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate, and generally when a candidate is nominated by two parties, he or she is listed twice on the ballot, so that a voter can vote for that candidate under either party label. Some misinformed voters invariably vote for such a candidate under both labels. New York credits this vote to the party that has the top spot on the ballot, which means, almost always, that the Democratic Party or the Republican Party gets that vote, and the smaller party does not. Judge Rakoff ruled against the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

A trial will now be held to determine if there is solution (to the problem of voters who cast a double-vote) that does not discriminate against smaller parties. The opinion has some excellent language in support of the idea that the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to discriminate against minor parties. The Brennan Center for Justice is representing the minor parties in this case. The Brennan Center did a great deal of litigation for minor parties and independent candidates in the years 2000 through 2003, but then seemed to lose interest in minor party and independent candidate election law problems. The Brennan Center has even injured minor parties in the litigation in Connecticut over discriminatory public funding, by defending the Connecticut law in court (the case is pending before the U.S Supreme Court). However, the Brennan Center did take this New York case last year, and is doing an excellent job with it.