California Libertarians Submit New Evidence in Lawsuit Against Residency Requirement for Petition Circulators

Posted on by December 2, 2010
1

On November 22, the Los Angeles County Libertarian Party filed an amended complaint, and new exhibits, in Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, U.S. District Court, central district, cv10-2488.  This is the case that challenges California laws that make it illegal for anyone to circulate a ballot access petition for a candidate if that circulator doesn’t live in the candidate’s district.

U.S. District Court Judge Philip Gutierrez already issued a tentative ruling in this case, on November 2.  He said plaintiffs lack standing because the Secretary of State alleges she won’t enforce these laws.  The judge has invited the plaintiffs to submit a new complaint, which would contain factual allegations that the law is enforced, and that new complaint has now been filed.

The new complaint points out that the Secretary of State’s web page for one of the 2011 special legislative elections says in three places that petitions to place candidates on the ballot in that special election may only be circulated by residents of that district.  Furthermore, the complaint points out that another portion of the Secretary of State’s web page, which describes the qualifications to run for state office, says that the California Constitution requires one-year residence in the district for candidates but also says that the Secretary of State will not enforce that residency requirement for candidates.  Thus, the Secretary of State’s general policy seems to be to explain which laws she will and won’t enforce, so the obvious question is why her web page doesn’t say she won’t enforce the residency requirements for circulators as well.

It will be interesting to see if the Secretary of State revises her web page in response to this new complaint.

Hearing Set in New York Case Over How to Tally Votes for Two Parties Who are Running the Same Nominee

Posted on by December 2, 2010
6

U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff will hold a hearing in Conservative Party of New York and Working Families Party of New York v New York State Board of Elections on Monday, December 6, at 4 p.m.  This is the case that contests the state’s policy on counting votes.  When two parties jointly nominate the same candidate, and a voter casts two votes for that one candidate (one vote on each party’s line), the state deems that to be one vote for the party closest to the top of the ballot.  This means, generally, that a voter who votes twice for a candidate who has been nominated by the Conservative Party and the Republican Party, the Republican Party gets that vote and the Conservative Party doesn’t.

The state will try to persuade the judge to dismiss the case.  If the state fails to do that, there will be a trial in June 2011.

This problem mostly didn’t exist before 2010 in New York state, because before 2010, voters at the polls generally used mechanical voting machines, with levers.  The machine physically prevented anyone from voting for two candidates for the same office.  But starting in 2010, New York state uses paper ballots.

Gatewood Galbraith Announces Independent Bid for Governor of Kentucky in 2011

Posted on by December 1, 2010
12

On December 1, Gatewood Galbraith announced that he will be an independent candidate in November 2011 for Governor of Kentucky.  He was the Reform Party candidate for Kentucky Governor in 1999, and he polled 15.33% of the vote in a 4-person race.  This article says he was an independent in 1999, but that is not accurate.

The only three states with gubernatorial elections in 2011 are Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Virginia Files Response in Lux Case on Residency Requirements for Circulators

Posted on by December 1, 2010
1

On November 23, Virginia filed this response brief in Lux v Rodrigues, 10-1997.  This is the case over residency requirements for petition circulators.  Virginia’s brief tries to argue that the case is moot.  However, Virginia’s brief does not even mention the U.S. Supreme Court precedent that first established that ballot access cases are not moot just because the election is over.

That old U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Moore v Ogilvie, from 1969, said, “While the 1968 election is over, the burden allowed to be placed on the nomination of candidates for statewide office remains and controls future elections, as long as Illinois maintains her present system as she has done since 1935.”  Moore v Ogilvie did not say that the plaintiff-candidate needs to assert that he or she plans to run in future elections.  In Richardson v Ramirez, 418 US 24, at page 35, the U.S. Supreme Court commented that in Moore v Ogilvie, the plaintiff-candidate “was not apt to be revived in a future election.”  Yet Virginia’s new brief argues mightily that because Herb Lux, the candidate-plaintiff from the 2010 election, did not say he would run again in 2012, therefore the case is moot.

Chicago Board of Elections Must Process 368 Petition Challenges

Posted on by December 1, 2010
1

The deadline for filing challenges to petitions of candidates has closed in Chicago.  Chicago will be electing three citywide offices, and 50 alderman seats, in its February 2011 election.  The Board must hold hearings on 368 separate challenges to various petitions and statements of candidacy.  See this list.  Thanks to Phil Huckelberry for the link.

Most states do not use the challenge system.  In most states, employees of the elections office (either state or local) determine if petitions are valid.  Illinois, by contrast, assumes all petitions are valid, but anyone is free to challenge the validity of a petition, and then the Board of Elections must hold an adversarial hearing, which is time-consuming both for employees of the Board of Elections, and for representatives of the candidates.