Ben Manski has this interesting op-ed in the Cap Times of Madison, Wisconsin. He was the Green Party nominee for Assembly in the 77th district. He points out that when one only looks at the ballots of voters who did not use the straight-ticket device, he got more votes than any of his opponents. But he still lost, when the votes of people who did use the straight-ticket device are included.
On November 29, the Socialist Party asked the Michigan Supreme Court to hear its ballot access case, Socialist Party of Michigan v Secretary of State, 142163. The lawsuit challenges Michigan law for requiring almost twice as many signatures for a previously unqualified party to get on the ballot, as the number of votes for an already-established party to remain on the ballot. The Court will ponder whether to hear the case at its December 21 conference.
The formula is that the petition to get on the ballot requires 1% of the total vote cast for Governor, whereas the vote test for a party to remain on is 1% of the winning candidate’s vote for Secretary of State. Because, generally, the winning candidate for Secretary of State only gets slightly more than half the vote (and occasionally gets less than half the vote), this means the number of signatures for the Socialist Party is approximately twice the number of votes needed for the old parties to remain on. In Williams v Rhodes in 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court said one reason it was striking down the Ohio ballot access laws was that the petition to get on (15% of the last gubernatorial vote) was more than the vote test for an old party to remain on (10% of the vote for Governor).
The Michigan Socialist Party also argues that it should be recognized because some of its member-nominees were on the ballot recently and received the minimum necessary number of votes. The problem with that is that they were on the ballot as Green Party nominees, not Socialist Party nominees.
The Socialist Party hasn’t been on the Michigan ballot since 1948. The last time any party with the word “socialist” in its name was 1996, when the Socialist Equality Party was on the Michigan ballot, along with the Workers World Party.
On December 7, the British House of Lords passed an amendment to the bill that sets up a May 5, 2011 vote in Great Britain on whether to use Instant Runoff Voting for House of Commons elections.
The amendment says that the vote should be at any time in 2011 that is no later than October 31, 2011; but that the vote can’t be on May 5, 2011, the date the House of Commons had chosen for the measure. Parts of Great Britain are already holding other elections on May 5, 2011, but other parts aren’t. The majority in the House of Lords feels that it would be improper to hold the IRV vote on the same day that some parts of the nation are voting on other matters. The fear is that this would skew the national vote on the IRV measure. Voter turnout would not be uniform throughout the nation. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
On December 3, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, a Bush Jr. appointee, held a hearing in Laroque v Holder, 10-0561. The case is in federal court in Washington, D.C. See this story.
In 2008, the voters of Kinston, North Carolina, voted to change the city’s elections from partisan elections to non-partisan elections. The Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department refused to approve the change. North Carolina is under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which means that when an election law or practice is changed, the Voting Rights Department must approve the change. Alternatively, the Voting Rights Act permits a covered jurisdiction to ask a federal court in Washington, D.C., to approve the change.
Kinston has a black majority, and the Voting Rights Section felt that a switch from partisan elections to non-partisan elections would harm black voters. The city council of Kinston has not been willing to challenge the decision of the Voting Rights Section. So, on April 7, 2010, five Kinston voters sued the Attorney General of the United States, alleging that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. The Attorney General’s response is that individual voters do not have standing to do that. Judge Bates is expected to rule quickly on whether the case may proceed. One of the plaintiffs, Klay Northrup, is registered as an independent voter. The case alleges that he is harmed by the failure of the Justice Department to let Kinston have non-partisan elections. He says he would like to run for city council. As an independent, he cannot run without a petition of 4% of the number of registered voters. But, if the city had non-partisan elections, no such burdensome petition would exist for him or any other candidate.
On December 6, the Pennsylvania Attorney General filed this 34-page brief in the 3rd circuit in Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Cortes. The brief is unusual because it puts all its arguments about the substance of the case in various footnotes. The text itself is confined solely to arguing that the plaintiffs (the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties) lack standing and that their complaints are not ripe.
The brief does concede, on page 12, that “county election officials are required to compute and certify votes cast for write-in candidates.” On page 29, in footnote 20, the brief says if write-ins are not being counted in some counties, plaintiffs should sue those counties, not the state. However, it is the state that has the responsibility to tally up the write-in votes for candidates in statewide races. For example, in November 2008, many counties counted the write-ins for Cynthia McKinney, but the State refused to tally them up. When a state refuses to tally up the write-ins, the various publications, both governmental and private, will not include those write-ins in their compilations because they aren’t “official”. Only a state can make a vote total “official.” So, the publications of Congressional Quarterly, the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representative, and the Federal Election Commission, all reported “zero” votes for Cynthia McKinney in 2008 from Pennsylvania.
The brief does not even mention the part of the lawsuit that challenges the 15% registration membership requirement, before a party can automatically place its nominees on the November ballot without petitions, except that footnote 13 on page 19 says the parties can’t complain about this because this issue was dealt with in a 2006 case called Rogers v Cortes. This assertion is not true.
The brief does not rebut the plaintiffs’ assertion that a system which requires independent candidates and minor parties to run the risk of paying costs of up to $110,000 if their petitions do not have enough valid signatures is unconstitutional, except in footnote 15 on page 23. That footnote just says the principles of the filing fee cases do not apply because costs are different than filing fees. That footnote does not mention the U.S. Supreme Court precedents against poll taxes.
The brief’s assertion that the complaint is not ripe is rebutted by the fact that all the statewide minor party petitions submitted in 2010 were withdrawn after the challengers threatened the parties that they risked fees of up to $110,000 if their petitions turned out not to have enough valid signatures. The brief does not acknowledge anything that happened in 2010.