OnDecember 6, the final brief was filed in Lux v Rodrigues, the case that challenge’s Virginia’s law that prohibits anyone from circulating a petition outside his or her own congressional district (if the petition is for a candidate for U.S. House). The case is pending in the 4th circuit. This final brief was filed by attorneys for Herb Lux, the candidate who was kept off the November 2010 ballot because of the circulator residency restriction.
On December 5, the Minnesota Republican Party voted to ban 18 Republican office-holders or former office-holders from participating in any official party activities for the next two years. This even includes a ban on their representing Minnesota Republicans at the 2012 national convention. The 18 individuals had all endorsed the Independence Party gubernatorial nominee earlier this year. On the list are two former Republican Governors (Arne Carlson and Al Quie) and one former Republican U.S. Senator (David Durenberger). See this story. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.
December 6 is the deadline for the state of Georgia to file any opposition it wishes to file, before the U.S. Supreme Court, in Coffield v Kemp, the ballot access case. Apparently Georgia chose not to file any brief, although neither did it tell the Court that it waives its right to file. If the U.S. Supreme Court wants to hear from Georgia, it will ask Georgia to respond.
Also, December 6 was the deadline for any amicus curiae briefs in support of Coffield. One was filed jointly by the Center for Competitive Democracy, the Coalition for Free & Open Elections, and the Free & Equal Elections Foundation. Read it here. COFOE paid for the printing and thanks everyone who has contributed to COFOE.
Here is the brief filed by Faye Coffield herself, a month ago. Early next year the U.S. Supreme Court will say if it wants to hear this case.
December 6 is the deadline for the state of Georgia to file any opposition it wishes to file, before the U.S. Supreme Court, in Coffield v Kemp, the ballot access case. Apparently Georgia chose not to file any brief, although neither did it tell the Court that it waives its right to file. If the U.S. Supreme Court wants to hear from Georgia, it will ask Georgia to respond.
Also, December 6 was the deadline for any amicus curiae briefs in support of Coffield. One was filed jointly by the Center for Competitive Democracy, the Coalition for Free & Open Elections, and the Free & Equal Elections Foundation. Read it here. COFOE paid for the printing and thanks everyone who has contributed to COFOE.
Here is the brief filed by Faye Coffield herself, a month ago. Early next year the U.S. Supreme Court will say if it wants to hear this case.
On October 22, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a three-page ruling, saying the lawsuit McVay v Department of Elections is moot. Therefore, the Court won’t decide the issue. The issue is whether a minor party nominee who then files in a major party primary can be kept off the primary ballot. The lower court had refused to order that two Libertarian nominees for public office in 2010 should be permitted to file in major party primaries.
Delaware permits fusion, and there is no election law that says anyone should be kept off a primary ballot, just because they are minor party nominees. But the major parties had objected to the filing. Therefore, as things stand now in Delaware, a minor party may cross-endorse a major party nominee, but the two major parties can always block a minor party nominee from winning a cross-endorsement from a major party, even if the voters in those major party primaries would like to cross-endorse that minor party nominee.
The U.S. Supreme Court already settled in 1969 that ballot access cases are not moot just because the election is over. The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision is erroneous. Perhaps the same issue will be raised in federal court. Delaware is in the 3rd circuit, and the 3rd circuit ruled in 1999 that if Pennsylvania permits the two major parties to engage in fusion, it can’t ban fusion for minor parties. That case, Reform Party of Allegheny County v Allegheny County Dept. of Elections, 174 F.3d 305 (1999) is not exactly the same as the Delaware case, but it is very close.
