According to this article, Mitt Romney’s presidential primary petition is being challenged in Illinois because Romney signed his declaration of candidacy and then had it notarized by a Massachusetts Notary Public, instead of an Illinois Notary Public. The challenge to Romney’s petition was filed by someone who is working for Rick Santorum.
On January 20, the office of the “Repealer”, a Kansas Commission charged with identifying laws that should be repealed because they are unconstitutional or obsolete, submitted a list of 51 laws that ought to be repealed. However, the Repealer did not include Kansas Election laws 25-116 and 25-117, which ban the Communist Party from the ballot.
All such laws were held unconstitutional in 1974 in a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Communist Party of Indiana v Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441. Kansas is one of six states that still bans either the Communist Party, or “subversive” parties, from the ballot, or requires a loyalty oath for parties or candidates. The others are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois and Pennsylvania.
Several years ago, the Kansas Secretary of State tried to persuade the legislature to repeal the Communist Party ban, but the bill to do that was defeated by one vote in committee.
The “Repealer” list in Kansas has received extensive publicity because the list also omits the law banning two individuals of the same sex from having certain kinds of sex. Those laws were declared unconstitutional by a 2003 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Lawrence v Texas.
On January 20, a U.S. District Court struck down several campaign finance restrictions enacted in 1973 by the city of San Diego. Here is the 32-page opinion in Thalheimer v City of San Diego, 09-cv-2862. Probably the most important part of the decision is the deference that the court paid to political parties.
The decision upholds a contribution limit of $500 from individuals to candidates for city office. It also upholds a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates. But it strikes down a contribution limit of $1,000 from political parties to candidates. The decision explains that parties are intended to represent their members, by aggregating contributions and broadcasting messages more wisely than individual contributors generally could afford to do.” Because parties are large groups of like-minded citizens, they are entitled to a larger contribution limit.
There are other issues in the case. The decision strikes down a law that prevents candidates from contributing to their own campaign more than a year before the election (the city didn’t even try to defend that law), but upholds a law making it illegal for anyone else to make a contribution more than a year before the election. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The Mayor of San Luis, Arizona, has filed a lawsuit to remove a candidate for City Council from the ballot if she cannot demonstrate a good command of English. See this story. Arizona state law requires public officials to be able to speak English, but has no details about how well.
On January 20, the 3 North Carolina state court judges hearing the redistricting lawsuit refused to issue an order postponing the 2012 North Carolina primary from May to July. See this story.
