Independent Candidate for Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Remains on Ballot, but Endorses Republican Ticket

On October 1, Paul Loscocco, the Lieutenant Governor running mate of Tim Cahill, independent candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, said he is withdrawing and that he urges voters to vote for the Republican ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.  But, it is too late to remove Loscocco’s name from the ballot, and he will still appear on the ballot as an independent candidate for Lieutenant Governor.  Massachusetts is a state in which Governor and Lieutenant Governor are elected as a team.

Tea Party Candidate for New York Governor Removed from Ballot

Last week, a New York state court removed Steven Cohn from the New York ballot.  He had filed to be on the November ballot as the gubernatorial candidate of the Tea Party.

As a result, there are seven candidates for Governor on the ballot, listed here in the order in which they appear on the ballot:  Andrew Cuomo (Democrat, Independence, Working Families); Carl Paladino (Republican, Conservative, Taxpayers); Howie Hawkins (Green); Jimmy McMillan (Rent is 2 Damn High); Warren Redlich (Libertarian); Kristin Davis (Anti-Prohibition) and Charles Barron (Freedom).  Carl Paladino’s Taxpayer Party line is at the bottom of the ballot.  Thanks to Mark Dunlea for the order of candidates on the ballot.  The earlier version of this post was incorrect about the ballot order.

Maryland Highest State Court Appears to Provide Relief for Petition Validation Problem

On September 30, the Maryland State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest state court, voted 5-2 to put a referendum on the Montgomery County ballot even though election officials had said it doesn’t have enough valid signatures.  The case is Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Association v Montgomery County Board of Elections, no. 86.

In 2008 the same court had ruled that petitions on ballot measures must be an exact match with the name as shown on the voter registration form.  That had meant the invalidation of all signatures if the signer used a middle initial on the voter registration form but not on the petition, or vice versa.  It had meant invalidation if the signer put an abbreviation of a first name in one place but not the other, such as “Wm.” or “Rich” instead of “William” or “Richard.”

The Court did not release an explanation for its decision, but it will do so.  The only conclusion one can draw is that the Court now realizes it erred in its 2008 decision and has changed its mind.  Thanks to Doug McNeil for this news.  The ballot question at stake in the recent case would have asked the voters if they wish to impose fees on people picked up by ambulances.  The county government had imposed such fees, but then people opposed to the fee circulated a petition to require a referendum.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Lux Application, Says Law on Circulator Residency is Still Unsettled

On September 30, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts denied injunctive relief to Herb Lux, independent candidate for U.S. House in Virginia.  The 3-page order says, “Lux may very well be correct that the Fourth Circuit precedent relied on by the District Court (Libertarian Party of Virginia, a case decided in 1985) has been undermined by our more recent decisions addressing the validity of petition circulation restrictions.  At the same time, we were careful in American Constitutional Law Foundation to differentiate between registration requirements, which were before the Court, and residency requirements, which were not.  Lux himself notes that the courts of appeals appear to be reaching divergent results in this area, at least with respect to the validity of state residency requirements.  Accordingly, even if the reasoning in Meyer and American Constitutional Law Foundation does support Lux’s claim, it cannot be said that his right to relief is ‘indisputably clear’.”

The order notes that to obtain injunctive relief from a Circuit Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the applicant must demonstrate that the legal rights at issue are “indisputably clear.”  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that states can’t require circulators to be registered voters, but has never decided whether states can require them to be residents of the district or the state in which they are working.  The 2nd, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th circuits have struck down residency requirements for circulators, along with state courts or U.S. District Courts in states not in those circuits, namely New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.  On the other hand, the 4th circuit upheld a district residency requirement back in 1985, and the 8th circuit upheld an in-state residency requirement in 2001.

There is a good chance the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually agree to hear this case to decide the issue, but first it must go through the 4th circuit, which may take a year.

U.S. Government Asks for More Time to Respond to Lawsuit in U.S. Supreme Court on Size of U.S. House

On August 26, 2010, the plaintiffs in Clemons v U.S. Department of Commerce had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear that case, 10-291.  The issue is whether the Constitution implicitly requires that the size of the U.S. House of Representatives be increased, because at its current size, it is impossible for “one man, one vote” principles to apply, because U.S. House districts cannot cross state lines.  As a result, the voters of Montana only have one member of the U.S. House, and the voters of Wyoming also have one member of the U.S. House, but Montana has almost twice as many people as Wyoming.

The response of the Solicitor General was due September 29, but the Solicitor General has obtained an extension until October 29.  One can read the Jurisdictional Statement of the plaintiffs at www.apportionment.us.