Arkansas Green Party Loses Lawsuit Against Vote Test to Remain on Ballot

Posted on by July 31, 2010
2

On July 29, a U.S. District Court in Arkansas upheld the vote test that determines whether a party may remain on the ballot automatically or not.  Green Party of Arkansas v Daniels, 4:09-cv-695.  Fortunately, the Green Party had done another petition for the 2010 election, so it is on the ballot this year anyway.  UPDATE:  here is the 23-page opinion.

Arkansas removes parties from the ballot if they fail to poll 3% of the vote for the office at the top of the ballot.  In presidential years, parties must poll 3% for President; in gubernatorial years, they must poll 3% for Governor.  The Arkansas Green Party had polled over 20% for U.S. Senate in 2008, and had elected a state legislator, but that didn’t help to keep the party on the ballot.  The party’s presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, polled less than 3%, so it lost its spot on the ballot and had to re-petition.  The petition to get back on takes 10,000 signatures.

No federal court has ever struck down a vote test for a party to remain ballot-qualified, so this was a tough case to win.

Eleventh Circuit Grants Injunction to Stop Extra Public Funding for One Florida Gubernatorial Candidate

Posted on by July 30, 2010
1

On July 30, the 11th circuit reversed the U.S. District Court and enjoined Florida from paying extra public funding to William McCollum, a candidate for Governor in the Republican primary.  McCollum’s opponent, Richard Scott, had filed the lawsuit, which is Scott v Roberts, 10-13211.  The decision is 44 pages.

The 2nd circuit had made a similar ruling earlier this month, in a Connecticut case.  The 9th circuit had come to the opposite conclusion a few months ago.  The issue is whether states violate the constitution when they give extra public funding to publicly-funded candidates who have very well-funded opponents who are not using public funding.

The 11th circuit says that Florida could achieve its goal of encouraging participation in public funding if it would just eliminate the expenditure ceiling for publicly-funded candidates who have opponents who are not using public funding and who have substantial resources.  The decision is written by Judge William H. Pryor (a Bush Jr. appointee), and co-signed by Judge Joel F. Dubina (a Bush Sr. appointee) and Judge Beverly Martin (an Obama appointee).  Thanks to Nicholas Ruiz for the news.

U.S. Department of Justice Decides Not to Take a Position on Counting Write-in Votes

Posted on by July 30, 2010
4

On June 30, the U.S. Justice Department said that the Department has decided not to take a position in the pending lawsuit Libertarian Party v District of Columbia Board of Elections, now pending in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.  The case challenges the practice of the Board of Elections to not count votes for presidential candidates who are not on the ballot in November, but who do file a declaration of write-in candidacy.

Bob Barr had filed a declaration of write-in candidacy in 2008, along with the names of proposed candidates for Presidential Elector.  The Board says it takes too much cost and bother to count such votes.  The U.S. District Court Judge handling the case had invited the Department of Justice to express its opinion, but the Department’s letter of July 30 says, “After due consideration of the issues, the Department and the United States Attorney’s Office have decided not to take a position with respect to the pending litigation.”

The largest number of write-in votes ever cast in November for a presidential candidate was in California in 1976, when independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy polled 58,412 write-ins.

The District of Columbia was ordered to print write-in space on the ballot for President in 1975, in a case called Kamins v D.C. Board of Elections, in the District’s highest court (not a federal court).  That case had been filed in 1972 by supporters of Dr. Benjamin Spock.  Spock was the presidential nominee of the People’s Party in 1972, but he wasn’t on the ballot and his supporters sued so they could cast a write-in vote for him.  They won the case, three years after they had filed it.  Ever since 1975, the Board of Elections has printed write-in space on the ballot for President, but it has never counted the write-ins, not even for presidential candidates who filed a write-in declaration of candidacy.

James Traficant Finds Error in State’s Determination of How Many Signatures He Needs

Posted on by July 30, 2010
7

James Traficant, a former Democratic member of Congress from Ohio, attempted to run this year as an independent candidate for U.S. House in Ohio’s 17th district.  However, he was told that he needed 2,199 valid signatures, and after his petition was checked, he was told that he only had 2092 valid signatures.

Now elections officials have acknowledged that their earlier determination of how many signatures were required was incorrect.  See this story.  Ohio requires independent candidates for district office to submit a petition of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote within that district.  Ohio would make less work for itself if the law said such a candidate needs a petition of 1% of the vote cast for the particular office the candidate is running for.  That would be easier, because anyone could easily know the vote cast for that particular office, just by looking at the official election returns from that past election.  By making the formula 1% of the vote for governor in the last election, that forces elections officials to do a calculation of how many votes for Governor were cast in a particular district, something that is not apparent from the election returns.  Thanks to Carter Momberger for the link.  It appears that even though elections officials acknowledge error, the new calculation is only 29 signatures fewer than than the original calculation, so Traficante probably still doesn’t have enough valid signatures.

The newspaper story in incorrect when it says an independent candidate for district office needs signatures from each county in the district.

Carl Paladino Seems to Say He Will Run as Taxpayers Party Gubernatorial Candidate Even if he Doesn’t Get Republican Nomination, but He Wouldn’t Campaign

Posted on by July 30, 2010
1

The July 30 Buffalo News has this confusing story, which seems to say that if Carl Paladino loses the New York Republican gubernatorial primary on September 14, he will still be listed on the November ballot as the nominee of his new Taxpayers Party.  But, if he loses the Republican primary, he would not campaign in the general election.