West Virginia’s U.S. House District Boundaries Invalidated by 3-Judge U.S. District Court

Posted on by January 3, 2012
Reply

On January 3, a 3-judge U.S. District Court invalidated West Virginia’s U.S. House district boundaries. The vote was 2-1. Here is the opinion, which is interesting reading, especially the second half. The plan was rejected because one of the districts has a population of almost 5,000 more voters than one of the other districts. The opinion points out that no other state that has finished redistricting since the 2010 census has a population deviation greater than .03% (except for the Arkansas plan). But West Virginia’s plan has a .79% deviation.

One of the interesting facts in the opinion is that West Virginia and Iowa are the only states that have ever had at least two districts, in which the district boundaries have never split a county. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Much Commentary on Virginia Ballot Access Shows Utter Ignorance of History of Ballot Access Litigation

Posted on by January 3, 2012
Reply

Some commentators about politics and election law have recently expressed the opinion that it would be illegitimate to change the Virginia presidential primary ballot access law between now and the March 6, 2012 presidential primary in that state. They sometimes say it is immoral to “change the rules in the middle of the game.” For example, see this commentary by Jay Sekulow.

These commentators don’t seem to know that in every presidential election starting in 1968, courts have “changed the rules” and permitted candidates to get on the November ballot even though those candidates didn’t “play by the rules.” These commentators don’t understand how bad the U.S. ballot access laws are. In 48 of the 50 states, courts have invalidated at least one ballot access law, during the period starting in 1968.

In 1968, George Wallace would not have been on the November ballot if he had not won constitutional lawsuits against Alaska, Idaho, and Ohio. Also in 1968, courts put the presidential nominees of the Communist Party on the ballot in Minnesota, the Socialist Workers Party on the ballot in New York, and the Freedom and Peace Party on the ballot in New York.

In 1972, courts put the presidential nominees of the Communist Party on the ballot in the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania; and the Socialist Workers Party on in the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania.

In 1976, courts put Eugene McCarthy on the ballot as an independent presidential candidate in Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. They put the Libertarian presidential nominee on the ballot in California, Nebraska, and Tennessee.

In 1980, courts put John B. Anderson and/or his vice-presidential running mate on in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. They put the Libertarian Party nominee on the ballot in Louisiana and West Virginia. They put the Citizens Party nominee on the ballot in California. They put the Communist Party nominee on the ballot in Michigan.

In 1984, courts put the Libertarian presidential nominee on the ballot in Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wyoming. They put the Communist Party nominee on the ballot in Michigan and Pennsylvania. They put the New Alliance Party nominee on the ballot in Massachusetts and Michigan. They put the Citizens Party nominee on the ballot in Michigan. They put the Populist Party nominee on in Idaho. They put the Socialist Workers Party nominee on in Michigan.

In 1988, courts put the New Alliance Party nominee on the ballot in California and Michigan. They put the Workers World nominee on in New Mexico. They put the Libertarian Party nominee on in Kansas. They put independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy on in Michigan. They put the Socialist Workers nominee on in Michigan.

In 1992, courts put the Libertarian Party nominee on in Alaska. They put the New Alliance Party nominee on in Nevada. They put the U.S. Taxpayers Party nominee on in Alaska. They put independent presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche on in Ohio. They put the Natural Law Party nominee on in Nevada, and the Populist Party nominee on in Nevada.

In 1996, courts put the Libertarian Party nominee on in Arizona, Florida, and West Virginia. They put the Reform Party nominee on in Arkansas and Maine. They put the Natural Law Party nominee on in South Carolina.

In 2000, courts put the Green Party nominee on the ballot in Illinois and West Virginia. They put the Reform Party nominee on the ballot in Connecticut.

In 2004, courts put the Socialist Party nominee on the ballot in Colorado, and put independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in Arkansas, Colorado, and New Mexico.

In 2008, courts put the Libertarian Party nominee on in Massachusetts and Ohio, and the Green Party nominee on in Ohio, and the Socialist Party nominee on in Ohio, and the Constitution Party on in Ohio.

Already for the 2012 presidential election, a court has put the Libertarian Party on the ballot in Ohio.

Georgia Administrative Judge Refuses to Dismiss Challenge to President Obama’s Ballot Placement on Democratic Presidential Primary

Posted on by January 3, 2012
Reply

On January 3, Georgia State Administrative Judge Michael M. Malihi refused to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges President Barack Obama’s spot on the March 6 Georgia Democratic presidential primary. The lawsuit was filed by various Georgia voters, who argue that Obama does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be President. These voters will now have an opportunity to present evidence, in a hearing set for January 26, unless the January 3 order is overturned on appeal.

The January 3 ruling is four pages, and says that the Georgia law, permitting challenges to the ballot position of candidates, applies to presidential primaries just as much as it applies to any other primary or election. Here is an article about the lawsuit that appeared two weeks ago in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. One of the attorneys who brought the case, J. Mark Hatfield, is a Republican state representative from Waycross who introduced a bill last year, HB 401, to require presidential candidates to submit proof of qualifications. That bill did not pass. Another of the attorneys is Orly Taitz. The case is Farrar v Obama. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

So Far, Buddy Roemer is Only Presidential Candidate Who Has Applied for Primary Season Matching Funds

Posted on by January 3, 2012
Reply

The Federal Election Commission has only received one request for primary season matching funds, so far. It is from Buddy Roemer, who is simultaneously seeking the Republican nomination and the Americans Elect nomination. Candidates file for primary season matching funds, if they wish, when they have received at least $5,000 from each of twenty states. The FEC will decide whether or not to approve Roemer’s submission within the next two weeks.

Four years ago at this time, the FEC had received applications for primary season matching funds from four Democrats and three Republicans. The Democrats were John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden. The Republicans were John McCain, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter, although Tancredo had withdrawn from the race on December 20, 2007. McCain qualified for primary season funds and then decided not to take them. Candidates sometimes decline primary season matching funds because if they accept them, they face spending limits that otherwise don’t apply.

Arizona Bill to Move Names of Presidential Elector Candidates on Ballot Ahead of Vice-Presidential Nominees

Posted on by January 3, 2012
Reply

Representative Jack Harper of Arizona has introduced HB 2027 into the 2012 session of the legislature. It moves the names of presidential elector candidates on the November ballot so they come before the names of vice-presidential nominees.

Under current law, the November ballots carry the names of a presidential candidate, and then the name of his or her vice-presidential running mate, and then the names of the eleven candidates for presidential elector pledged to that ticket. If the bill passes, the ballot will instead show the presidential candidate, and then the candidates for presidential elector, and then the vice-presidential candidate.

Governor Jan Brewer caused this bill to be introduced. Before 2011, Arizona didn’t list vice-presidential nominees on the ballot at all. Governor Brewer signed a bill in 2011 to add vice-presidential nominees’ names to the ballot, but she didn’t like the fact that the 2011 bill put the vice-presidential nominee’s name above the presidential elector candidates’ names on the ballot. She told the 2011 bill sponsor that she would sign his bill, but that he must promise to introduce a new bill in 2012 to switch the order, and he has now kept his promise.

Arizona is one of only six states that still prints the names of presidential elector candidates on the ballot. The others are Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Idaho. The names of the presidential elector candidates in Arizona take up quite a bit of room on the ballot. Chances are there will be 66 or so candidates for presidential elector from Arizona this November.