U.S. Supreme Court Advances one Election Law Case that has Long been Stalled

On May 11, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that it has placed Dallas County v Texas Democratic Party, 10-755, on its May 26 conference. The conference will probably decide whether to hear the case. The case had also been on the March 18 conference, but the Court had not then decided whether to hear the case, nor had it rescheduled it immediately for another conference, as is customary.

The issue is whether Dallas County’s new rules concerning its vote-counting machines should have been submitted to the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department. The Texas Democratic Party doesn’t like the Dallas County vote-counting machines, because the machines have a tendency to trick some voters into voting just for a single candidate, even though the voter believes he or she has activated the straight-ticket device and has voted for all partisan office.

There are other U.S. Supreme Court election law cases that have already been through at least one conference, and for which no decision has been made by the Court on whether to hear that case. The case involving the U.S. Senate election in Illinois in 2010 is one such case (10-367 and 10-821); another is the Green Party of Connecticut case concerning discriminatory public funding (10-795).

The U.S. Supreme Court has set a May 12 conference date in Nader v Bennett, 10-1186. This is not an election law case. It concerns Ralph Nader’s ballot access case from 2004 against Arizona, but at this point the only outstanding issue is whether the lower courts in Arizona gave the proper amount of attorneys fees to Nader’s attorneys, the Bernhoft law firm of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The firm argues that the standards for calculating attorneys’ fees, in civil rights cases when the state loses, have been applied arbitrarily and that the firm is entitled to more fees than it received. Here is the cert petition.

Eighth Circuit Hears Arkansas Green Party Case

On May 10, the 8th circuit heard oral arguments in Green Party of Arkansas v Martin, 10-3106. The lawsuit challenges the Arkansas law that removes parties from the ballot whenever they go through a statewide election and fail to poll 3% of the vote for the office at the top of the ticket (Governor in midterm years, and President in presidential years). The Green Party has successfully petitioned as a party in 2006, 2008, and 2010. Each petition drive required 10,000 valid signatures and exhausted the party’s funds. The party argues that it polled enough votes for various state and federal offices, each time, to make it obvious that the party has a modicum of support, and that it is irrational for the state to remove it from the ballot.

The three judges were very familiar with the history of the Arkansas law. Even before any attorney mentioned the history of the law, they were already aware that the law, requiring removal of a party for failing to poll a specified share of the vote for either President or Governor, had been passed in 1971, just after the American Party had polled 5.9% for Governor. The 1971 law removed the American Party, because the new law required a vote of 7%. Thus it appears that the 1971 legislation was passed for a discriminatory purpose. Before 1971, any party could be on the ballot in Arkansas just by being organized. The three judges are Michael Melloy and James Gritzner, from Iowa; and Duane Benton from Missouri. They were all appointees of President Bush Jr.

Constitution Party Polls 46.0% in Alabama Special Legislative Election

On May 10, the voters filled a vacancy in the Alabama State House, 105th district, in Mobile County. Only two candidates were on the ballot, Republican nominee David Sessions and Constitution Party nominee Bill Atkinson. The unofficial results are: Republican 1,926 votes, 54.0%; Constitution 1,641, 46.0%. See this story.

The Constitution Party is now automatically ballot-qualified in this district, for this particular race, in the 2014 election, assuming redistricting does not cause the district to cease to exist. Alabama grants parties permanent ballot status in any district in which the party polls at least 20%. Thanks to Joshua Cassity for this news. This is the best showing the Constitution Party has ever made for a partisan state legislative race, outside of Montana.

Missouri Ballot Access Bill Passes Senate

On May 10, the Missouri Senate passed SB 282, an omnibus election law bill. Among other things, it repeals the typographical error that forces groups circulating a petition to qualify the party to list a presidential nominee on the petition (if the group believes it will eventually have a presidential nominee). This bill had passed both houses before, but the two houses had different versions and a conference committee was then held. The conference committee then revised the bill somewhat and that has what has just passed the Senate. If the latest version of the bill passes the House, it will go to the Governor. Thanks to Ken Bush for this news.

Nevada Court Sets May 19 Hearing in Case over Special Congressional Election

A Nevada state district court will hear Nevada Republican Party v State on May 19. This is the case over whether the upcoming special U.S. House election in Nevada will be one in which various political parties nominate candidates, or whether individuals will simply file as individuals (although with a party label for each individual). The Secretary of State, a Democrat, had ruled for the latter alternative. The Nevada Republican Party had then sued, arguing that the Secretary of State’s interpretation is incorrect. If the Republican Party wins the case, each ballot-qualified party will nominate someone by party meeting. In either event, independent candidates, and members of unqualified parties, can also get on the ballot with a petition of 100 signatures.