| Page 4489

Montana Secretary of State Expresses Dismay at Possibility of a Libertarian Statewide Primary

Posted on March 17, 2012 by adminMarch 17, 2012

Two candidates have filed for U.S. Senate in the Montana Libertarian primary. Montana requires parties with ongoing ballot status to nominate by primary, but does not actually print up primary ballots unless there is a contest. See this story, which says that Montana hasn’t printed up primary ballots for any qualified party, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, since 1996, when the Reform Party had a contested primary. The story also says the Secretary of State will try to avoid a Libertarian primary and is considering listing both candidates on the November ballot.

The odd part of this story is that neither the Secretary of State, nor the legislator who is quoted in the story, seems to have thought that a good solution would be to let small qualified parties nominate by convention. The Libertarian Party has candidates for a majority of the statewide offices in Montana this year, but only in the U.S. Senate race is there more than a single candidate from that party. Thanks to Mike Fellows for the link.

U.S. District Court in Tennessee Refuses to Stay its own Order in Ballot Access Case

Posted on March 16, 2012 by adminMarch 16, 2012

On March 16, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Haynes refused to stay his own ruling in the Tennessee ballot access case, Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, 3:11-0692. The original decision in this case, handed down on February 3, 2012, struck down the state’s ballot access law for newly-qualifying parties. It also ruled that a 2011 law, providing that the two major parties should always have the top two spots on the ballot, is unconstitutional. Finally, it ordered the state to recognize the two plaintiff political parties, the Green Party and the Constitution Party.

The state had then asked Judge Haynes to stay his own opinion. Specifically the state asked him to stay the part of the decision on the order of political parties on the ballot, and the part of the decision that put the two plaintiff parties on the ballot.

The March 16 Memorandum from the Court rebuts the state’s argument on ballot order. The state, in its request for a stay, had asserted that Tennessee has party column ballots, and that the social science research on the effect of ballot order cited in the original February 3, 2012 decision only relates to office-group ballots. Judge Haynes went to the trouble of finding examples of recent Tennessee ballots. The ballots he found, and which he attached to his opinion, prove that in some populous counties in Tennessee, an office-group ballot is used.

An “office-group ballot” lists each office up for election, and then underneath that particular office heading, lists all the candidates running for that office. By contrast, a “party-column” ballot divides the ballot into rectangular boxes, with all of one particular party’s nominees in one column (or, in one row, depending on the layout).

The Tennessee vocabulary for these ballot types does not use the common vocabulary. In Tennessee law, an office-group ballot is called a block-ballot, and a party-column ballot is called a “party block ballot.” The decision uses the Tennessee terms, not the standard terms.

Florida State Court Will Hear Evidence in April on Whether U.S. House District Boundaries are Valid

Posted on March 16, 2012 by adminMarch 16, 2012

On March 16, a Florida state trial court said evidence can be presented next month on whether the state’s new U.S. House districts violate the Florida Constitution. See this story.

Arizona Bill, Threatening Existence of Public Funding, Advances

Posted on March 16, 2012 by adminMarch 16, 2012

On March 15, the Arizona House Judiciary Committee passed SCR 1021 by a vote of 5-2. It places a measure on the November 2012 ballot asking if voters wish to de-fund the public funding program, which applies to candidates for state office. The bill has already passed the Senate.

Final Brief Filed in 9th Circuit in Lawsuit on Two Particular Aspects of California Top-Two System

Posted on March 16, 2012 by adminMarch 16, 2012

On March 15, this 26-page reply brief was filed in Chamness v Bowen, 11-56449. The Ninth Circuit now has all three briefs in the case, and will eventually set a date for oral argument. Chamness v Bowen challenges two particular characteristics of California’s top-two law (Proposition 14): the ban on the ballot label “independent”, and the original law’s restriction on counting write-in votes.

This reply brief, filed by opponents of Proposition 14, points out that when backers of Proposition 14 intended to place the idea on the ballot as an initiative in 2009, their draft did permit use of the ballot label “independent.” But the version passed by the California legislature changed the draft to make it impossible for any candidate to use “independent” on the ballot. Yet the proponents of Proposition 14 say they want to help independent candidates.