On October 18, the South Dakota Constitution Party filed this opening brief in the 8th circuit. The only issue in the case is the state’s ban on out-of-state circulators. The case is Constitution Party of South Dakota v Nelson. The party is not appealing the other part of the case, on the South Dakota law that says members of some ballot-qualified parties must submit 250 signatures of party members in order to be on the party’s primary ballot for statewide office.
On September 1, a Solano County, California Superior Court Judge had ruled that the faction of the American Independent Party that supported Alan Keyes for president in 2008 should answer the complaint in King v Robinson, 034452. That faction has still not answered the complaint.
On October 29, the case was before a new judge, who set a hearing in early 2011 on the Keyes faction’s request that the case be dismissed, on the grounds that the defendant is Markham Robinson, and that Robinson is no longer state chair of that faction of the party.
The California Secretary of State sends a voter handbook to each voter in the state, before each state election. The general election booklet has a page for statements from each ballot-qualified party. The 2010 booklet statement from the American Independent Party is signed by Nathan Sorenson, Chairman. But then that page lists Markham Robinson’s address, 476 Deodara Street, Vacaville Ca 95688. It lists Markham Robinson’s e-mail, mark@masterplanner.com. It lists a phone number that belongs to Robinson, 707-359-4884. The voters handbook is available on the Secretary of State’s web page, with all that contact information. This gives the impression that Robinson is still the de facto chair, even though he no longer officially holds that title. UPDATE: Markham Robinson is the new Secretary, so it makes sense that his contact information is in the pamphlet.
If the Keyes faction of the American Independent Party really believed that its officers are the legally valid officers, one would expect them to be eager to proceed with the lawsuit. The matter is been pending for over two years with no actual evidence gathered so far.
Movie star Matt Damon has made this you tube, intended for voters who want to support the New York Working Families Party on November 2. As has been previously noted, this year New York isn’t using mechanical voting machines; voters are voting on paper ballots. Therefore, the Working Families Party, the Independence Party, and the Conservative Party, are all alarmed that many voters are likely to vote twice for one office, for the same candidate. When that happens, the vote-counting machines will count those votes as valid for the party that appears first. So anyone who votes for Andrew Cuomo, for example, as both a Democrat, and a Working Families Party nominee, will have that voted count only for the Democratic Party.
Thanks to Kimberly Wilder for the link.
The federal government has now obtained a second extension of time in which to respond to the people who filed the lawsuit Clemons v U.S. Department of Commerce, 10-291. The case is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court and concerns the size of the U.S. House of Representatives. The government brief is now due November 17. It had originally been due on September 29, and then the government had won an extension to file by October 29.
The lawsuit argues that the 14th amendment requires “one person, one vote” for representation in the U.S. House. But because U.S. House districts never include part of one state and part of another state, the voters of some states have almost twice as much representation in the U.S. House as other states. For example, Montana and Wyoming each have one representative, but Montana has almost twice as many people as Wyoming. Therefore, the case argues that the only way to cure the problem is to increase the size of the U.S. House.
Even though the Goldwater Institute already won injunctive relief against Coconino County, in federal court, over whether voters may wear shirts to the polls that mention the Tea Party, Maricopa County says it is not subject to that ruling. Therefore, the Institute is about to sue Maricopa County over the same issue today. See this story.
