Nevada Secretary of State Asks Legislature to Increase Filing Fees

The Nevada Secretary of State has asked the legislature to pass A81, a bill that has many proposed election law changes. The legislature doesn’t convene until February. The bill increases the filing fees. Currently, the fees for U.S. Senate are $500; for U.S. House and Governor, $300; for other statewide state offices $200; for legislature and partisan county office, $100.

The bill would require these higher fees: for U.S. Senate, $3,000; for U.S. House and Governor, $2,000; for other statewide state offices $1,500; for legislature and partisan county office, $300. The bill also says that candidates who swear they cannot afford these fees are permitted to submit a petition in lieu of filing fees, in which one signature equals one dollar, so that a poor candidate for U.S. Senate, for example, would need 3,000 signatures in lieu of paying the fee.

The bill also moves the petition deadline for a full-fledged new political party to April. If one reads the bill, the new deadline appears to be in May, but another section of the law, not being amended, says the real deadline to submit the petitions to the counties is five weeks before the deadline for putting the signatures in the hands of the Secretary of State. Thus the effective deadline would be in April. This proposal is odd, because in 1986 a U.S. District Court in Libertarian Party of Nevada v Swackhamer, 638 F.Supp. 565, that an April petition deadline for new parties is unconstitutionally early. And back then, new parties nominated by primary. Nowadays they nominate by convention, so there is even less reason for a deadline that early.

Illinois Supreme Court Stays the Lower Court Opinion in Rahm Emanuel Residency Case

On January 25, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a stay of the State Court of Appeals decision yesterday. This means that during the next few days, while the State Supreme Court is deciding the issue, any ballots that are printed must contain Rahm Emanuel’s name. The election is February 22. Thanks to Rick Hasen. UPDATE: the Court also said it will take the case, will not hold any oral arguments, and will decide the case by reading the briefs already filed in the State Court of Appeals. This means a decision is likely from the State Supreme Court very soon, perhaps even by the end of this week.

Opposition Briefs Filed in U.S. Supreme Court in Burris v Judge, the Illinois Special U.S. Senate Election Case

Last year, U.S. Senator Roland Burris of Illinois desired to run in the special election for U.S. Senate in November 2010 (for the two-month short term), but the 7th circuit ruled before the election that the only candidates who could be listed on the November 2010 ballot for that seat were candidates who were already on the ballot for the regular election for that same seat. Last year, Burris asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put him on the ballot, but the Court refused him injunctive relief. Nevertheless, Burris also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a declaratory ruling. On November 3, 2010, the Court seemed to show interest in his case, and asked the other side to file response briefs.

The response briefs have now been filed. Here is the response of the Illinois Attorney General. Here is the response of the voters who filed the original lawsuit, demanding an early special election for the U.S. Senate seat. This is a 3-cornered fight, in which the voters who filed the original case, Senator Burris, and the state of Illinois, all have their own legal positions and their own ideas of what should have happened. The brief of the voters does not even address the most interesting part of this case, which is whether ballot access in one election can be made literally impossible for any candidate who isn’t running in some other election. The state’s brief does address that, at pages 21-22.