Lawsuit Filed to Keep Mayor of Prescott, Arizona, off the Ballot in This Year’s City Election

On June 8, a lawsuit was filed in Arizona state court, seeking a court order to remove Mayor Marlin Kuykendall from the ballot in Prescott’s mayoral election of August 30, 2011. The election is non-partisan. Kuykendall was first elected Mayor in 2009 and he is running for a second term.

The lawsuit argues that he should be off the ballot because he didn’t personally sign his campaign’s Statement of Organization. See this story, which has links to some of the briefs. The case is Wilson v Burke, Yavapai County Superior Court, P1300-cv-2011-00972.

Arizona permits write-ins in all elections. Unfortunately, in 2005, the legislature passed a law saying any candidate whose ballot access petition fails for any reason cannot be a declared write-in candidate. That law was the idea of Jan Brewer, who was Secretary of State at the time. It was directed at Ralph Nader, whose ballot access petition had failed in 2004. Nader did successfully file as a write-in in 2004, and his write-ins were tallied, but then the law was changed to stop write-ins in future elections for candidates who had tried to petition.

South Carolina Republican Party State Chair Still Hopes State Will Pay for Presidential Primaries

It seems likely, but not certain, that the South Carolina state government will not pay to administer any presidential primaries next year. The Republican Party is the only party that was planning a presidential primary in 2012 in any event. This statement from the Republican Party’s state chair is couched in oblique terms, but it seems to say that the party hopes the state government will pay for its presidential primary. The letter also seems to indicate that even if the state doesn’t pay for it, the party will. The party charges a $35,000 filing fee to list a candidate on its presidential primary. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Extra Public Funding for Publicly-Funded Candidates with Well-Funded Opponents

On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of Arizona’s program for public funding of candidates. Here is the opinion, which is called Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett, 10-238. The majority opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, is 30 pages. The dissent, by Justice Elena Kagan and signed by the Court’s other three liberals, is 32 pages.

The part of the law struck down provides for extra public funding, for publicly-funded candidates who have privately-financed opponents. The extra public funding kicks in if the privately-financed opponent spends a great deal more money than the amount of money given by the government to the publicly-financed candidate. The extra public funding also is triggered if there is a great deal of independent expenditure made on behalf of the privately-funded candidate.

The majority decision gives little clue as to what the five-member majority thinks about public funding laws that discriminate against independent candidates and the nominees of new parties. Arizona does not discriminate for or against any candidate on the basis of party affiliation or lack of it, so that issue did not arise in the Arizona case. That issue is before the court in the Green Party case from Connecticut. The Arizona dissent does make a brief reference to the independent candidate/minor party issue, however. Page two of Justice Kagan’s dissent sets forth two hypothetical states, both of which have public funding. In her hypothetical, the first state doesn’t have the extra public funding for certain candidates that Arizona’s law has provided. In her second hypothetical state, that state does have Arizona-style extra public funding. But in Kagan’s hypothetical scenario, that second state (which she clearly approves of) “does not discriminate against any candidate or point of view.” This sentence at least tells us that Justice Kagan is aware of the problem that certain states (e.g., Connecticut) do discriminate on the basis of partisan affiliation or lack of it.

The big news will come when the Court says whether it will hear the Connecticut case. That news will probably come Tuesday, June 28. The Connecticut case has been pending before the Court since March. The Court has understandably not said whether it will hear the case, while the Arizona decision was pending. But now we can expect the decision on whether the Court will hear the Connecticut case tomorrow. It was on Conference today, June 27.

Nevada Democrats Choose U.S. House Nominee for Special Election Via Committee Meeting

On June 25, the Nevada Democratic Party state central committee chose Kate Marshall as its nominee for U.S. House, in the upcoming September special election in the 2nd (northern) district. See this story.

The Nevada Democratic Party is still asking the State Supreme Court to rule that anyone may run, with a party label, in that special election, instead of just party nominees and various independent candidates who obtain 250 valid signatures. However, the fact that the Democratic Party chose a party nominee will probably weaken its lawsuit, and make it more likely that the State Supreme Court will agree with the lower state court that special elections are still partisan elections.