Christian Party Organizes in Louisiana, Places Independent Congressional Candidate on Ballot

For several months, a newly-organized Christian Party has been attempting to qualify for the Louisiana ballot.  It needs 1,000 registered members, and says it now has 300 registered members.  It is running Anthony Marquize for U.S. House, 2nd district.  This is the district centered on New Orleans.  Marquize cannot have the party name on the ballot next to his name because the party is not yet ballot-qualified.  Marquize is one of three independent candidates who have qualified in that race.  See this story.  Thanks to Randall Hayes for the link.

The last time a party with the name “Christian Party” appeared on a statewide ballot was in Washington state in 1936.

Socialist Party Files Constitutional Ballot Access Lawsuit Against Michigan

On July 21, the Socialist Party of Michigan filed a lawsuit in state court, seeking a declaration that the number of signatures needed to place a new party on the ballot violates the Michigan Constitution.  Michigan and Kansas are the only two states in which the number of signatures required to put a new party on the ballot is a higher number than the number of votes needed for an old party to remain ballot-qualified.  Therefore, the law seems discriminatory against new parties, and seems to favor old parties.  UPDATE:  here is the complaint, which is much more interesting than most complaints, and has lots of information about the modern-day history of the Socialist Party in Michigan.  It is 40 pages.

The case is Socialist Party of Michigan v Land, Ingham County Circuit Court, 10-867-CZ.  The case depends on a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in 1982, Socialist Workers Party v Secretary of State.  In that 1982 case, the State Supreme Court struck down the old Michigan requirement for new parties to get on the ballot that had been passed in 1976.  That old law required new parties to submit a petition, and then also poll a number of votes in the August primary equal to three-tenths of 1% of the turnout in that primary.  The “vote” for the party in the August primary was peculiar.  Voters who were voting in the primary saw a section of the ballot that asked if they wished certain petitioning parties to appear on the November ballot.  Primary voters who voted “yes” were not permitted to vote for any candidates of any party in the primary.  The State Supreme Court noted that this was not only very difficult to comply with, but that it was also discrminatory, because the old ballot-qualified parties were not subject to that August primary vote test.

Michigan currently requires 38,024 signatures to put a new party on the ballot, which is 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.  But it only requires approximately 20,000 votes for an old party to remain ballot-qualified.   The formula for the vote test for a party to remain on the ballot requires a vote of 1% of the winning candidate for Secretary of State’s vote total.  Obviously the vote cast for the winning candidate is considerably less than 1% of the entire vote cast.

The Michigan Socialist Party brief also notes that there is some evidence that this year’s Tea Party petition cost $100,000.  The Socialist Party has nominated seven candidates for office this year and asks the court to place its nominees on the November ballot.  The party has two U.S. House candidates, one state legislative candidate, and four statewide nominees.

The Socialist Workers Party filed a somewhat similar lawsuit against Massachusetts in 1970.  That case turned out badly.  The lawsuit pointed out that a new party needed a petition signed by 3% of the last gubernatorial vote.  But an old party could remain ballot-qualified as long as it had polled one-tenth of 1% for Governor in each of the last three gubernatorial elections.  The court upheld the 3% but ruled the vote test to be unconstitutional.  The court’s reasoning was flawed.  The Massachusetts court should instead have noted that Massachusetts was unconstitutionally discriminating against new parties, and let the legislature decide how to remedy the problem.

Mary Norwood Gets No Relief From Deadline in State Court

On July 27, a lower state court in Georgia ruled that the deadline for paying the fiing fee must be complied with strictly. Therefore, Mary Norwood  is off the ballot as an independent candidate for Chair of the Fulton County Commission.  The petition deadline was July 13, and she complied with that.  But the deadline for filing her filing fee was noon on July 2, and she was four hours late for that.

She still has the option to file a federal lawsuit, alleging that the July 2 deadline is unconstitutional.  Only four states require independent candidates to file a filing fee or declaration of candidacy before the petition itself is due.  West Virginia voluntarily repealed that in 2009.  South Carolina once had such a deadline but it was declared unconstitutional in 1990 in the 4th circuit.  But the 5th circuit upheld such a separate deadline in 1996.  The other states that have separate deadlines are Texas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Kentucky.  The separate deadlines have never been challenged in court in the latter three states.

Shelby County, Tennessee, Voters Will Vote on Instant Runoff Voting on November 2

The voters of Shelby County, Tennessee (which contains Memphis) will vote on November 2, 2010, on a new charter, which would combine city and county government.  The proposal also asks the voters if they wish to use Instant Runoff Voting for council members.

The proposal won’t go into effect until the county’s vote-counting machines are ready to use IRV.  Also, IRV won’t go into effect unless both the city and the county vote for the proposal to unify the governments, even if the county voters vote separately in favor of the IRV idea.  As the comment below says, Memphis voters already voted to use IRV in 2008.