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.
9
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.
On December 16, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation for a special election, State Senate district 28, in western Los Angeles County. This will be the first election under top-two rules.
The Secretary of State then posted the requirements to get on the ballot in that special election. Even though Proposition 14 and its implementing language, SB 6, did not amend the election law on signatures in lieu of filing fee, the Secretary of State is interpreting the new rules to require twenty times as many signatures for members of small qualified parties, than before.
Under the old rules, members of small qualified parties needed, at most, 150 signatures of party members, to avoid paying the filing fee, which is 1% if the annual salary of the office being sought (for U.S. House and state legislature), and 2% (for statewide office other than President). Under the new interpretation, members of small qualified parties need 3,000 signatures in lieu of the filing fee (for U.S. House and state senate) and 10,000 signatures (for statewide office other than President), and 1,500 (for Assembly).
In this particular special election, the 3,000 signatures are due on Monday, December 20. It was theoretically possible for anyone to have been circulating a petition in lieu of filing fees starting on December 11, but not until December 16 could anyone have known when they would be due. The Governor called the special election on the earliest possible day, so that made the petitions in lieu of the filing fee due only four days after the Governor set the election date.
In 1982, the 11th circuit ruled that when the normal number of signatures must be collected in a substantially shortened time period, the state must proportionately reduce the signature burden. Citizens Party of Georgia v Poythress, 82-8411, decision of July 14, 1982, not reported. In that case, the Citizens Party complained about having to collect 2,000 signatures in only 50 days, when the normal petitioning period was 180 days (the period was only 50 days in that election because the legislature had taken so long to draw the district’s boundaries). Also, in 1981, the 4th circuit ruled in favor of a Libertarian Party nominee for a special congressional election in Maryland. The law required the candidate to submit 5,436 signatures and only 19 days had been permitted to collect them. Instead of reducing the number of signatures, though, the court ordered that more time be granted. Mathers v Morris, 515 F Supp 931, and 649 F 2d 280. Maryland then asked for U.S. Supreme Court review, but that Court denied the state’s request.
California is not controlled by decisions of the 4th or 11th circuit, but these decisions ought to be influential if anyone should challenge the extremely short petitioning period to collect the 3,000 signatures in lieu of the filing fee.
The California Secretary of State’s instructions for candidates also say that no one can collect these signatures who lives outside Los Angeles County, even though in court the Secretary of State says she doesn’t enforce that law. That case, pending, is Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, U.S. District Court, central district, 2:10-cv-02488.
On December 16, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, a Bush Jr. appointee in Washington, D.C., issued a brief order, upholding the action of the U.S. Justice Department (Voting Rights Section) concerning Kinston, North Carolina. North Carolina is one of the states covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Voters in Kinston voted to switch from partisan city elections to non-partisan city elections. But the Voting Rights Section rejected the change, finding that the switch would injure black voters.
The city government accepted that decision, but some voters in Kinston sued. They not only wanted to alter the decision about the type of city elections Kinston should hold, they also wanted to get a ruling that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. The judge has not yet issued an opinion explaining his reasoning. See this earlier blog post about the case. Chances are, the case is dismissed because the judge believes that private citizens do not have standing to challenge a decision of the Voting Rights Section. UPDATE: here is the one-page order. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.
On December 16, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, a Bush Jr. appointee in Washington, D.C., issued a brief order, upholding the action of the U.S. Justice Department (Voting Rights Section) concerning Kinston, North Carolina. North Carolina is one of the states covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Voters in Kinston voted to switch from partisan city elections to non-partisan city elections. But the Voting Rights Section rejected the change, finding that the switch would injure black voters.
The city government accepted that decision, but some voters in Kinston sued. They not only wanted to alter the decision about the type of city elections Kinston should hold, they also wanted to get a ruling that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. The judge has not yet issued an opinion explaining his reasoning. See this earlier blog post about the case. Chances are, the case is dismissed because the judge believes that private citizens do not have standing to challenge a decision of the Voting Rights Section. UPDATE: here is the one-page order. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.