On September 7, two Republicans sued the Colorado Secretary of State, alleging that the Secretary of State should not have permitted the Constitution Party to nominate Tancredo. See this story. A hearing will be held in state court on September 13. The case is Olson v Buescher, 10-cv-4180.
The Christian Science Monitor has this story, on whether it is good public policy to let minor party and independent candidates participate in debates with their major party opponents. The story was triggered by a publicity campaign recently launched by Free and Equal, to expand the California gubernatorial and U.S. Senate debates from just two candidates, to all six candidates on the ballot.
The story does not mention that in the last few weeks, several U.S. House debates have been held in California, and everyone on the ballot participated. Also there will be a U.S. House debate in which all four candidates on the ballot in California’s 6th district are invited, on September 20 in Santa Rosa. The four candidates in that race are the nominees of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties.
On September 7, the Pennsylvania State Elections Office (the Department of State) revealed that it intends to file this amicus curiae brief with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in the Carl Stevenson ballot access case. The brief is dated September 8 because that is the date it will be filed. The Stevenson ballot access case concerns in-district residency for petition circulators.
The brief says the Department of State is neutral, but that it finds itself in an awkward position, because in 2002 a federal court permanently enjoined the state from enforcing the residency requirement yet a few weeks ago the Commonwealth Court removed a candidate from the ballot because of that same requirement.
The Miami Herald has this op-ed by Political Science Professor Daniel A. Smith, recommending that states and the federal government implement programs for public funding of campaigns. Thanks to Political Activity Law for the link.
On September 7, a Tennessee state court invalidated the petition to recall the Mayor of Chattanooga, Tennessee, because some of the signatures aren’t dated, and also because the judge said the number of signatures required should be controlled by state law, not by the City Charter. See this story. This is a re-write of an earlier blog post that had been written before the decision had come down.
