On August 16, Barry Hess and several other individuals sued Maricopa County, Arizona, over security issues involving vote-counting machines. The other plaintiffs include for State Senator Karen Johnson. See this story. The story has a link to the complaint, but it doesn’t seem to work. If any reader has more details about the name of the case, or anything else, please post a comment.
The Leesville, Louisiana Daily Leader has this story about the August 28 primary for the Libertarian Party. The story also covers one of the two candidates for the party’s nomination for U.S. Senate. Thanks to Gene Berkman for the link.
On August 19, U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby upheld several Maine campaign finance laws, but also struck down two features of those laws. Here is the 37-page decision in National Organization for Marriage v McKee, 09-538.
The laws that were struck down are: (1) a requirement that independent expenditures in excess of $250 per candidate must be reported within 24 hours; (2) Maine’s definition of “Political Action Committee” (PAC), which is too vague to be constitutional. The definition for a non-major-purpose PAC is an organization that spends money “for the purpose of promoting, defeating or influencing in any way the nomination or election of any candidate to political office.” The decision says that definition makes it difficult for an organization to know whether it must register as a PAC or not. Therefore, it is void for vagueness.
The 9th circuit will hold an en banc hearing on September 21 in Farrakhan v Gregoire, 06-35669. The case challenges Washington state’s ban on felon voting. The original 9th circuit panel had ruled 2-1 that the federal Voting Rights Act does apply to state bans on felon and ex-felon voting rights. The original 9th circuit panel had also found that Washington state’s criminal justice system does discriminate on the basis of race and ethnic origin. Therefore, if the Voting Rights Act was meant to apply to this issue, the state ban on felon voting violates the Voting Rights Act.
A similar case from Massachusetts is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. It is Simmons v Galvin, 09-920. The U.S. Supreme Court considered taking this case in May and at that time asked the Solicitor General of the United States to express an opinion. It is possible the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear the Massachusetts case in October 2010, when the Court returns from summer recess. Thanks to the Moritz election law site for this news.
In 2010, California has the fifth most difficult petition requirement for independent candidates to get on the November ballot, for U.S. House. The California law requires signatures equal to 3% of the number of registered voters. The only states with higher petition requirements are Georgia (5% of the number of registered voters), North Carolina (4% of the number of registered voters), Illinois (5% of the last vote cast), and South Carolina (exactly 10,000 signatures).
This year, at least one U.S. House independent candidates has overcome the California petition requirement. He is John Hager. See his web page at www.hagerforcongress.org. He is running in the 23rd district, on the central coast, the area represented by Congresswoman Lois Capps. Thanks to Christina Tobin for this news.
The California independent candidate petition law was passed in 1976. Starting that year, there have been six independents on the ballot for U.S. House in California in regularly-scheduled elections. Hager is the seventh. Before 1976, the California law was even worse. Between 1931 and 1976, it required the signatures of 5% of the last vote cast, and primary voters couldn’t sign. Also, all signatures had to be collected in 24 days.
