Keyser, West Virginia, city officials are interpreting the city’s recall law to mean that if a recall petition successfully gets enough signatures, and then the official being recalled survives the recall vote, then the signers of the petition are financially liable for the cost of putting on the recall election. See this news story. The city is empowered to put a lien on the property of anyone who signs, who becomes liable, and who doesn’t pay.

Keyser is the largest town in Mineral County, in northeast West Virginia, just south of Maryland. It is estimated that a citywide recall would cost $10,000, and approximately 1,000 signatures are needed for a citywide recall. So, the average signer would be liable for approximately $10. Thanks to the Recall Elections Blog, via Rick Hasen, for the link. The Recall Elections Blog points out that if the official subject to the recall loses the recall vote and is ousted from office, he or she is not obliged to pay for the costs of the recall election.

This matter is somewhat reminiscent of the situation in Montana, where Rick Jore, the Constitution Party’s only elected legislator at the time, was forced to pay for the administrative costs of a recount. He had been declared the winner in the original tally, but someone had asked for a recount, and the recount showed he had not won the election after all. Jore was then told that he had to pay for the recount. This matter is also somewhat reminiscent of the situation in Pennsylvania, in which a petitioning group or candidate whose petition is challenged and found not to have enough valid signatures is liable for the costs of the challenge, which can exceed $100,000.

According to this story, both Republicans and Democrats in the Ohio legislature may strike a deal, in which the proponents of the November 2012 election law referendum would voluntarily remove their referendum from the ballot. The 2011 omnibus election law bill, passed by Republican legislators over Democratic and labor union opposition, is currently set for a popular vote on whether to repeal it. Republicans believe the law probably will be repealed, so this year the Republican majority has been trying to repeal the law in the legislature so as to avoid a popular vote.

So far, Democrats have been insisting that the referendum should take place, but now it seems somewhat likely that both sides will agree to cancel the popular vote.

The 2011 omnibus election law bill contains many provisions that anger Democrats and labor unions. A part of the bill that gets overlooked by the media and most political observers is the part of the bill that attempted to create a constitutional ballot access law. The existing law was ruled unconstitutional in 2006 by the Sixth Circuit. The 2011 legislature attempted to write a new law that would pass constitutional muster, and it seems that new law is doomed, and Ohio will continue to have no constitutional ballot access law for minor parties in place.

On April 25, U.S. District Court Judge Garland E. Burrell cancelled the oral argument in Peace & Freedom Party v Bowen, which was to have taken place in Sacramento on April 26. He has not ruled yet, and will issue an opinion based on his reading of the briefs on both sides. The issue is whether the Secretary of State should have accepted the Peace & Freedom Party’s list of presidential candidates for printing on the party’s primary ballot, or whether she had the authority to delete one candidate, based on her investigation into whether that candidate, Peta Lindsay, meets the constitutional qualifications to be President.