California Lieutenant Governor Changes His Position on Whether California Law Permits Candidates Registered in Unqualified Parties to List a Party Preference on Ballot

Posted on by October 17, 2010
23

On October 8, California Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, one of the leading proponents of the new “top-two” system in California (which is effective in 2011), filed a brief in the California State Court of Appeals, in the lawsuit Field v Bowen.  That lawsuit had been filed to challenge the ban on counting write-ins in November elections for Congress and state office, and the discriminatory feature that says members of unqualified parties may not have any party label on ballots.  The Maldonado brief seems to say that members of unqualified parties may list their party on ballots.  This is a reversal of the position that Maldonado took in the lower court.

Maldonado is in the case as an Intervenor.  His October 8 brief says “One plausible interpretation of these provisions is that SB 6 (the implementing language for the top-two system) does not bar candidates registered with non-qualified parties from disclosing their preference for those parties on the ballot.  This is an issue that Real Party Secretary of State will likely have to address in connection with future elections.”

To the extent that Maldonado is saying that the label provision is permissive and treats all candidates equally, he is contradicting the Defendants in the case, the Secretary of State and various county election officials.  The Defendants continue to maintain that SB 6 does not permit members of unqualified parties to place a party label on the ballot.

Both the Superior Court and the State Court of Appeals have refused to issue a preliminary injunction against any aspect of the “top-two” system, mostly on the grounds that the system doesn’t start until the first special election of 2011, and so far there is no special election set for 2011.

Philadelphia Libertarian Party Formally Asks that Write-ins be Tallied

Posted on by October 17, 2010
8

On October 17, the Philadelphia Libertarian Party sent a courteous, formal letter to the Philadelphia County elections office, notifying the county of who the Libertarian write-in nominees are, and asking that write-ins be counted and tallied.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court long ago ruled that the state Constitution requires write-in space on Pennsylvania ballots.  And the election law says that all votes are to be counted and tallied, even write-in votes.  Nevertheless, Philadelphia election officials routinely ignore all write-in votes and never even mention how many were cast, much less revealing who received them.  This policy of Philadelphia and certain other counties is being challenged in a case now pending in the 3rd circuit.  It would be a good idea for the Libertarian Party to send similar notices to other counties, and also a good idea for the Green, Constitution, and Socialist Workers Parties to send similar letters.  All these parties have write-in candidates for Pennsylvania statewide office this year.

The Socialist Workers statewide write-in candidates are:  Brian Nevins for Governor, and Osborne Hart for U.S. Senate.

The Constitution Party statewide write-in candidates are:  John Krupa for Governor, Ed Roberson for Lieutenant Governor, and Donald John for U.S. Senate.

The Green Party statewide write-in candidate is:  Mel Packer for U.S. Senate.

The Libertarian statewide write-in candidates, mentioned in the letter, are:  Marakay Rogers for Governor, Kat Valleley for Lieutenant Governor, and Douglas M. Jamison for U.S. Senate.

Pennsylvania is the only large-population state this year to have a complete Democratic-Republican ballot monopoly for all statewide offices.

Constitution Party may Regain its Qualified Status in Wisconsin

Posted on by October 17, 2010
2

The Constitution Party lost its status as a qualified party in Wisconsin in 2006, because it failed to run any statewide candidates that year.  Wisconsin requires parties to poll 1% of the vote for any statewide race in midterm years, in order to remain ballot-qualified.

This year, the Constitution Party used the independent petition method to place a nominee on the ballot for U.S. Senate.  He has the ballot label “Constitution Party.”  Therefore, if he polls at least 1% of the vote, the party will again be qualified.  The nominee is Robert Taylor.  He is the only candidate on the ballot for U.S. Senate, other than the two major party nominees.

Twice before the Constitution Party has had a nominee on the ballot in Wisconsin for U.S. Senate, but neither time did the nominee poll as much as 1%.  However, in both those previous instances, there were at least four candidates on the ballot.

U.S. District Court Judge Won’t Issue Injunction in Conservative/Working Families Party Case on How to Count Votes When Voter Double Votes

Posted on by October 17, 2010
19

On October 15, U.S. District Court Judge Red Rakoff refused to issue an injunction in Conservative Party & Working Families Party v New York State Board of Elections, 10 Civ. 6923, eastern district.  This is the case in which those two parties complained that when a voter votes for the same candidate twice, once on each line, the machines are programmed to count only the vote for the party listed first on the ballot.  See the judge’s 5-page order here.  The plaintiffs want the machines programmed so that such a vote would be considered an overvote, and then the voter would be instantly notified of the overvote and asked to cast a new ballot.

For example, Andrew Cuomo is listed on the ballot three times as a candidate for Governor.  He is listed as the Democratic nominee, the Independence Party nominee, and the Working Families nominee.  Some voters will undoubtedly vote for him on all three lines.  The Board of Elections will count that as one vote on the Democratic line.

The basis for the denial is that the plaintiffs filed the case too late.  The order says “Plaintiffs (the political parties) have set forth substantial arguments in favor of their underlying complaint” but they “have slept on their rights and cannot at this late date seek the kind of onerous and potentially confusing relief envisioned..plaintiffs waited until six weeks before the election to file their complaint… the Court will not invoke the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction at this time.”  The judge also refused at this time to order elections officials to post signs in each polling place, warning voters not to double vote.  He said the plaintiffs have not yet even furnished a sample of what the signs should say.  UPDATE:  plaintiffs did submit proposed wording for signs in polling places.  They proposed “Do not vote for a candidate more than twice.  If you wish to vote for a candidate who appears on more than one party line, then you should vote for the candidate on the party line you wish to support.  If you vote for a candidate on more than one party line, then the candidate will receive credit for the vote, but the vote will automatically be credited to the first party listed on the ballot, and no other party will receive credit for the vote.”

This issue was not a problem in New York state in the past, because in the past almost all voters voted on mechanical voting machines, which mechanically made it impossible for voters to cast double-votes or triple-votes for the same candidate for the same office.  But this year, those machines are gone, and paper ballots are being used.  Thanks to Kimberly Wilder and IndependentPoliticalReport for this news.