Georgia Elections Advisory Council Recommendations Likely to be Released in Next Five Weeks

Posted on by November 22, 2011
3

On January 27, 2010, Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp announced the creation of the Elections Advisory Council, which was to hold hearings around the state and seek citizen input on improvements to the election laws. The Council’s report is expected sometime in the next five weeks. There is some reason for cautious optimism that the recommendations will include easing Georgia’s ballot access laws.

The Georgia ballot access laws for statewide office are so severe that no one has succeeded in using the minor party statewide petition since 1996, and no one has succeeded in using the statewide independent petition since 2000. The requirements for minor parties and independent candidates for U.S. House are so difficult, no one has ever used them since they were toughened in 1964. Even during the period 1943-1964, when the petition was 5%, but the state did not check the signatures, did not require a filing fee, did not require notarization, and had an October deadline, no minor party candidate for U.S. House ever qualified.

Two Lawsuits in Wisconsin on Whether Current Recall Petitions Should Use 2001 District Boundaries or 2011 District Boundaries

Posted on by November 21, 2011
2

According to this story, there are lawsuits pending in both federal and state court in Wisconsin over a new spate of legislative recall petitions. One set of plaintiffs, in the state case, argue that the recall petitions should be circulated in the new districts drawn by the legislature this year. The other plaintiffs, who filed in federal court, argue just the opposite, that since legislators elected in 2010 are the subject of the new recalls, the districts should be the districts that were used in the 2010 election.

Three California Political Parties File Lawsuit, Alleging that Top-Two Primary Law is Unconstitutional

Posted on by November 21, 2011
14

On November 21, the Peace & Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party of California, along with the Green Party of Alameda County, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in Alameda County, complaining that Proposition 14, the “top-two” measure passed in June 2010 by the voters, violates the rights of voters to vote freely in November, and also that the measure violates the Associational rights of political parties and their candidates. The case is Rubin v Bowen, RG 11-605301. Here is the complaint.

The lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Siegel and Yee, one of the best-known law firms in Alameda County, California.

This is the first lawsuit in California to allege that the essense of the top-two system is unconstitutional. There have been two lawsuits in California pending since 2010 that allege that two particular details of the California top-two primary system are unconstitutional. The two particular details attacked in those earlier lawsuits are the ban on counting write-in votes (even though the law says write-in space should be printed on the ballot), and the fact that some candidates may express their political views on the ballot but others may not. Those lawsuits are called Field v Bowen and Chamness v Bowen. The courts have not yet granted injunctive relief in either of those cases, although they are still pending.

Hearing Date Set for Tennessee Ballot Access Case

Posted on by November 21, 2011
3

On January 9, 2012, Monday, a U.S. District Court will hear oral arguments in Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, the lawsuit that challenges the new ballot access law passed by the Tennessee legislature this year. In 2010, the same judge who has this case, William J. Haynes, had declared the old law unconstitutional.

In response to the 2010 court decision, the 2011 session of the legislature did not lower the number of signatures (40,042 for 2012, 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote). It did move the deadline for a party to submit these signatures from late March to early April of the election year. And it removed the wording on the petition that says all the signers are members. The plaintiffs argue that these improvements are much too minor to save the law.