South Carolina Legislature Attempts to Give Relief to 180 Candidates Now Off the June 12 Primary Ballot

On May 8, the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee approved two bills that, if enacted in time, would give relief to the 180 Democrats and Republicans running for state and local partisan office who are now off the June 12 primary ballots. The candidates did not file a Statement of Economic Interest on time. The bills, SB 1512 and HB 3392, would restore ballot access for candidates who did not file the statement by March 30, but who had attempted to file it by April 20. See this story.

The Senate will take up the bills on May 9, in the afternoon. The bills do not have unanimous support and the primary is only a month away, so it is difficult to tell what will happen. Some of the candidates are attempting to get on the November ballot as independents, but the independent petition requirement in South Carolina is extremely difficult. It is 5% of the number of registered voters, although it is capped at 10,000 for statewide office and U.S. House. None of the affected candidates are running for federal office; the requirement only pertains to state and local office.

D.C. Board of Elections Changes Rules on Write-in Nominations in Middle of Election Period

The District of Columbia primaries this year were on April 3, both for President and all other partisan office. For decades, the rule concerning party nominations, when no name is on the primary ballot for a particular office, has been that the person who gets the most write-ins becomes the party nominee (assuming that person is qualified to receive the nomination).

If a write-in winner is not a member of the same party, D.C. disqualifies that person. The old rules said that when the person who gets the most write-ins is disqualified, the person who gets the second highest number of write-ins is then nominated (assuming that 2nd place finisher meets the membership qualifications).

This year, several Greens expected to win Green Party nominations for certain partisan offices via write-ins in the Green Party primary. After the primary was over, they were told that the rules had changed, although the new rule was not final until after the primary. The new rules say that when the write-in candidate who gets the most write-ins is disqualified, no one has won the primary. The second-place finisher is out of luck.

Fortunately, the rules still permit a qualified party that did not nominate anyone in its primary to then choose a nominee by party meeting. The Green Party has now held a party meeting to nominate the Green Party members who had thought they had won the Green Party via primary write-ins. They had received fewer write-ins than certain Democratic Party members for “Shadow” U.S. Senate and “Shadow” U.S. House. The Democrats were not eligible to receive the write-in nominations because of their party membership, so the two Greens had expected to be nominated via write-ins. The two Greens are David Schwartzman for Shadow U.S. Senator, and G. Lee Aikin for Shadow U.S. House member.

Judge James R. Browning Dies; Was Consistent Supporter of Fair Ballot Access Laws

On May 5, Judge James R. Browning of the 9th circuit died, at the age of 93. See this story. Judge Browning consistently ruled in favor of the ability of minor parties and independent candidates to gain access for the ballot. In 1985, he wrote the decision in Socialist Workers Party v Secretary of State of Washington, 765 F.2d 1417, which struck down Washington state’s law requiring minor party and independent candidates to poll at least 1% of the vote in the blanket primary, as a condition of appearing on the November ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that in 1986 in Munro v Socialist Workers Party. Judge Browning also voted to strike down California’s ballot access law for newly-qualifying parties, in a case decided in 1976.

Judge Browning was chief judge of the 9th circuit for many years. The 9th circuit courthouse in San Francisco is named for him. Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.

Constitution Party and Justice Party Sue California Over Ballot Access Procedure for Newly-Qualifying Parties

On May 7, the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the California procedure by which newly-qualifying parties get on the ballot. The plaintiffs include the Constitution Party of California and the California Justice Committee, which is attempting to raise money to qualify the Justice Party (Rocky Anderson’s party). Here is the complaint.

California requires newly-qualifying parties to have at least 103,004 registered members by January 3, 2012, if they are to list their presidential nominees with the party label on the November ballot. Or, alternatively, the state requires 1,030,040 valid signatures to be filed in the fall of the year before the election. These laws have existed virtually unchanged since 1953, and in the almost 60 years since they were created, only seven groups have successfully qualified.