Florida Bill to Prevent Out-of-State Circulators Advances

Posted on by March 22, 2011
3

On March 21, the Florida Senate Rules Subcommittee on Ethics and Elections passed SB 1504 by a vote of 7-5. The bill is sponsored by Senator David Simmons (R-Longwood). It bans petitioners from working in Florida if they don’t live in Florida. It also bans paying petitioners “directly or indirectly” on a per-signature basis. It requires petitioners to always carry ID while they are working. It bans anyone from circulating if that person has been convicted of certain crimes during the last five years.

The author must realize that parts of this bill may be invalidated by courts, because he included a severability clause. Florida, Georgia, and Alabama are the states in the Eleventh Circuit. None of those three states currently bans out-of-state circulators, so there are no court precedents in the 11th Circuit on that issue. Circuits that have invalidated residency requirements for circulators are the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. Certain lower courts in some states in the Third Circuit have also invalidated residency requirements for circulators. The Fourth and Eighth Circuits have upheld residency requirements for circulators. Thanks to BallotBoxNews for this news.

Maryland Court of Appeals Says Signatures Can be Valid Even when Signature is Illegible

Posted on by March 22, 2011
2

On March 22, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest state court in that state, ruled that signatures on petitions may be valid, even if the signature is illegible. The ruling says that if the printed name on the petition and the address match the voter registration records, and the appearance of the signature matches in both places (whether it is legible or not) the signature is valid. Here is the opinion. The vote was 5-2. The case is Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Association v Montgomery County Board of Elections, no. 86.

The dissent starts by saying, “Evolution blessed mankind with, among other beneficial features, opposable thumbs. Perfecting the use of our thumbs, modern descendants of the first Homo Sapiens, unlike other primates, are able to sign their names, in cursive, in a legible manner.”

The decision does not decide a related issue, whether a signature is valid if the signer omits his or her middle initial yet includes that middle initial on the voter registration form (or vice versa). That issue is pending in the 4th circuit, in Kendall v Howard County, Maryland, 09-2304. It was argued on December 9, 2010. A bill is pending in the legislature to provide that the middle initial must not necessarily be included on the petition, even if it is on the registration records (or vice versa).

Federal Court Lets Initiative Signers Keep Names and Addresses Private for Now

Posted on by March 22, 2011
1

On March 21, a U.S. District Court in Utah ruled that for the time being, the names and addresses of people who signed a Utah initiative petition may keep their names and addresses from being released to the public. Here is the 15-page order. The case is Utahns for Ethical Government v Barton, 2:10-cv-333. The initiative is in support of a proposed law to create an independent ethics commission and code of ethics for the legislature.

The order says that since the state doesn’t yet acknowledge that this initiative is going to be on the ballot, there is no purpose served in releasing the names and addresses of the signers now. The issue will arise again in the future if the initiative does get on the ballot.

Arizona Ballot Access Bill Advances

Posted on by March 22, 2011
6

On March 21, the Arizona Senate Judiciary unanimously approved HB 2304. This bill, sponsored by the Secretary of State and containing many election law changes, improves ballot access. It says that when a party qualifies for the ballot, it is then entitled to be on the ballot for two elections, not just one. Also it legalizes out-of-state circulators for all types of petitions. The bill had already passed the House.

Utah Initiative Supporters Sue Over Interpretation of One-Year Limit on Collecting Signatures

Posted on by March 22, 2011
1

On March 21, supporters of a Utah initiative filed a lawsuit in state court in Salt Lake County, arguing that their initiative should be put on the ballot. It has obtained 120,000 signatures, all collected between August 2009 and August 2010. Utah law says initiative proponents have one year to collect the signatures. But the state says the initiative is invalid.

The proponents collected the bulk of their signatures by the late spring of 2010, and turned them in, hoping the initiative would have enough valid signatures to be on the November 2010 ballot. The petition didn’t have enough, so the proponents returned to the streets and gathered many more, and now desire to have the initiative placed on the November 2012 ballot. But, the state says that signatures from the two petitioning periods can’t be combined. See this story. The initiative would provide for tougher ethics rules for state legislators. The case is Utahns for Ethical Government v The Clerks of all counties in Utah, cv 1109-06734. Thanks to Ballot Box News for this news.