Kansas Files Response Brief in Constitution Party Case on Voter Registration Forms

Posted on by September 13, 2011
Reply

On September 12, Kansas filed this brief in the 10th circuit, in Constitution Party of Kansas v Biggs, 10-4043. The issue is whether there should be a blank line on voter registration forms, to let Kansas voters register as members of parties that aren’t recognized.

The 10th circuit ruled in 1984, in a Colorado case, that states must let voters register into active minor parties that are not ballot-qualified. Because Kansas is in the 10th circuit, one would think Kansas would have little grounds to continue its policy of no write-in line on the voter registration form in the part of the form that asks voters to list party affiliation. Kansas attempts to defend itself by arguing that the Constitution Party lawsuit demands that the state tally voter registrations for every possible group. The Kansas brief won’t grapple with the Constitution Party’s point that the party has been active in Kansas. It placed its presidential nominee on the ballot in 2004 via the independent petition, and in 2008 it placed its presidential nominee on the Kansas ballot by persuading the ballot-qualified Reform Party to nominate him.

The Kansas brief also says Kansas ballot access is “exceedingly low”, and the Constitution Party should simply qualify itself, if it wishes to let voters register as members. The state’s brief is not accurate. Kansas’ petition to qualify a new party, 2% of the last gubernatorial vote, is so difficult, neither the Green Party nor the Natural Law Party has ever qualified in Kansas. Americans Elect qualified as a party in Kansas this year, but before that, no party had successfully qualified since 1998. The only states with a mandatory party petition in excess of 2% are Alabama, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee (“mandatory”, as used in the proceeding sentence, means that the group cannot appear on the November ballot with the party name unless it carries out that party petition).

The Kansas brief presents an incomplete list of court precedents. It mentions the Iowa Socialist Party case, in which the Iowa Socialist Party lost a similar case, but it doesn’t mention that when the Green and Libertarian Parties sued Iowa on the same issue, those parties won the case.

Third Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Carl Lewis Ballot Access Case

Posted on by September 13, 2011
Reply

On September 13, the 3rd circuit heard arguments in Lewis v Guadagno, 11-3401. According to this story, it is tough to predict the outcome. A decision is likely in the next two days. The issue is whether New Jersey violates the U.S. Constitution when it requires candidates for State Senate to have lived in the state for four years. It appears from the story that the New Jersey constitutional 4-year requirement is ambiguous, as to whether that is four years before the term of office starts, or four years before the election. However, that ambiguity most likely won’t affect the outcome in this particular case, because Carl Lewis voted in California in 2009.

The New Jersey state courts have already ruled that Lewis does not meet the State Constitutional requirement. Federal courts are not free to disagree with a state court’s interpretation of state law, generally.

Arizona Presidential Primary Will be February 28

Posted on by September 13, 2011
Reply

On September 12, Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer, said her state’s presidential primary will be February 28. See this story at Frontloading HQ. Frontloading HQ predicts that the Republican Parties of eight states will choose delegates to the national convention in January and February 2012. The four early states who will be breaking national Republican Party rules will likely be Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan. The other four early states, who have permission to be early, are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

Indiana State Court Rules Unopposed Candidates Should Appear on General Election Ballot

Posted on by September 13, 2011
Reply

According to this story, on September 12 an Indiana lower state court ruled that unopposed candidates in partisan elections in the city of Richmond should be on the November 2011 ballot, even if they have no opponents. The new state law, passed this year, says if someone has no opponents, not even a declared write-in, that office should be removed entirely from the November ballot. The lawsuit had been filed by the Democratic and Republican Parties and a few of their nominees, and some voters. According to the story, the judge did not hold the new law unconstitutional, but construed it not to apply to the Richmond city election of 2011. Election officials have not yet decided whether to appeal.