Already, in several states, dates and places have been chosen for Republican presidential debates. See this story. The earliest one will be in the spring of 2011, at the Ronald Reagan library in Simi Valley, California. No Republican has formally declared for the presidential nomination yet.
Niall Stanage, a journalist from Northern Ireland who writes about U.S. politics for readers both in Great Britain and in the United States, has this unusually perceptive and original article about third partes in the United States. The piece is in Capital, a New York politics periodical.
On December 16, the 11th circuit heard arguments in Grizzle v Kemp, 10-12176, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2009 Georgia law that says no one may run for a local school board if they have an immediate family member who is a school principal, assistant principal, or on administrative staff, in a school in that district. The U.S. District Court had declared the law unconstitutional on April 21, 2010.
The two plaintiffs were both denied the ability to run for re-election, in 2009, after the new law took effect. See this story.
In 1982, in Clements v Fashing, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is no fundamental right to be a candidate for federal office. However, there was no majority opinion. Instead, there was one decision signed by four justices, and a contrary opinion also signed by four different justices, and one justice who wrote separately. This has prevented the Clements case from having much influence.
The issue of qualifications to hold any particular office is distinct from the ballot access issue. When a law provides that a certain type of person is not eligible to hold the office, the person can’t even claim the office if he or she wins by write-in votes. By contrast, ballot access concerns whether someone who is eligible to hold the office is able to gain a place on the ballot.
According to this story, on December 17, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman said if he runs for re-election in 2012, he will probably run as an independent, just as he did in 2006.
On December 13, five candidates for citywide non-partisan Chicago office filed a federal lawsuit, alleging that the requirement that they each collect 12,500 valid signatures is unconstitutional. The case is Stone v Neal, 10cv-7727. Here is the complaint.
The lawsuit points out that candidates for statewide office only need 5,000 signatures, in partisan primaries. The analogy between a partisan primary and a non-partisan election is not perfect, but it is close. In Chicago city office elections, if no one gets at least 50% of the vote in the first round, a run-off is held.
In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require minor party and independent candidates for Mayor of Chicago to obtain approximately 42,000 signatures, because minor party and independent candidates for statewide partisan office needed 25,000 signatures. The Court basically said that it is not rational to require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than for statewide office. The decision was unanimous. The U.S. Supreme Court repeated that in 1992 in Norman v Reed.
Chicago switched to non-partisan elections for its citywide city offices in 1999. Thanks to Christina Tobin for this news.
