Public Policy Institute Promises that a Neutral Poll for California Governor, Listing All Six Candidates, Will be Done This Month

The Public Policy Institute of California says that there will be a neutral poll in the California gubernatorial election this month that asks voters about all six ballot-listed candidates.  This promise was made because PPIC is co-sponsoring a future California gubernatorial debate, and limiting invitations to only candidates who are at 10% in a neutral poll.  The 10% criteria is meaningless if no poll exists that asks about each candidate.

Besides Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman, candidates on the November ballot will be Chelene Nightingale of the American Independent Party, Laura Wells of the Green Party, Dale Ogden of the Libertarian Party, and Carlos Alvarez of the Peace & Freedom Party.

Colorado Ballot Access Case Will Get Quick Hearing in 10th Circuit

The 10th Circuit has agreed to an expedited briefing schedule in Curry v Daley,10-1265.  This is the case over whether Colorado’s one year disaffiliation for independent candidates is constitutional.  The legislature passed a bill this year relaxing it but the new relaxed law isn’t effective until 2011.  The reason for the court hearing is to determine if the old law should be declared unconstitutional this year, in time for independent legislator Kathleen Curry to be on the ballot as an independent candidate, for re-election.

Curry’s brief has already been filed, and the state’s brief is due August 9.  The court will issue an opinion no later than September 2.

Free & Equal Arranges Illinois Gubernatorial Debate

A debate among most Illinois gubernatorial candidates will be held on July 8, between 7 pm and 9 pm, at the Cordell Reed Student Union Building at Chicago State University, 9501 S. King Drive, Chicago.  The debate sponsors are the African American Male Resource Center, the Latino Resource Center, and Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity.  Free & Equal initiated the idea for the debate.

Participating are Richard Whitney of the Green Party; Scott Lee Cohen, independent gubernatorial candidate who had earlier this year won the Democratic primary for Lieutenant Governor but who had then withdrawn from that race; Libertarian nominee Lex Green; Constitution Party nominee Michael White; and independent gubernatorial candidate William Walls III.  Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn and Republican nominee Bill Brady are invited but have not said they will attend.

The debate is limited to candidates who are guaranteed to be on the November ballot, and also to candidates who submitted at least 5,000 signatures.  Two gubernatorial candidates who submitted a handful of signatures, Christopher Pedersen of the Independent Conservative Party, and independent Stephen Estill, are certain to be removed from the ballot and are not invited.  Every petitioning candidate this year has been challenged.

New Hampshire Attorney General Makes Large Factual/Legal Error in Brief in Libertarian Party Lawsuit

On July 6, the New Hampshire Attorney General filed his brief in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, 10-1360.  The case is pending in the First Circuit.  The Libertarian Party challenges two actions taken by the Secretary of State in 2008:  (1) he refused to let the party use a stand-in presidential candidate on its initial candidate petition: (2) he also refused to give the party any protection for its party label, and printed both George Phillies’ name on the general election ballot with the label “Libertarian” and Bob Barr’s name on the general election with the label “Libertarian.”  There was no way for a voter, looking at the ballot, to know that the party’s actual presidential nominee was Bob Barr, not George Phillies.

New Hampshire has two procedures by which an unqualified party may place nominees on the November ballot.  It can complete candidate petitions, which require 3,000 signatures for statewide candidates, and which permit a party label.  Or the group can submit a petition signed by 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, which would have required 12,524 valid signatures in 2008.  The 3% petition procedure is so difficult, it has only been used once since it was created in 1996.  The one instance at which it was used was in 2000, when the Libertarians used it.  The only advantage of doing the 3% petition is that the petition can be circulated before the unqualified party has chosen its nominees, and that does solve the stand-in problem.

But, doing the 3% petition does not solve the name protection problem.  The law says that when a group submits the 3% petition, it still can’t have its own party column.  Therefore, even if the Libertarian Party had done the very difficult 3% petition in 2008, the Secretary of State would still have printed Bob Barr’s name in the “Independent” column, with the label “Libertarian” in small letters next to Barr’s name.  And, the Secretary of State would still have printed George Phillies’ name in the “Independent” column, also with the label “Libertarian”, next to Phillies’ name.  There still would have been no means for a voter, looking at the ballot, to know who the Libertarian Party nominee was.

This is clear, not only looking at the New Hampshire law, but looking at a 2000 New Hampshire ballot.  In 2000, the only time when any group did the 3% petition, the Libertarians still didn’t get their own party column and their own party logo.  Harry Browne, the 2000 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, was still put in the “Independent” column.

But the Attorney General’s brief repeatedly says that if the Libertarians had done the 3% petition in 2008, they would have had their own party column, and then it would have been obvious to a voter that Barr was the Libertarian nominee, not Phillies, even though Phillies would have had “Libertarian” next to his name in the independent column.  The brief asserts this on pages 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 19, and 20.

New Hampshire election law section 652:11 defines “party” to be a group that polled 4% for U.S. Senate or Governor at the preceding election.  That definition does not show that a group that does the 3% petition also meets the definition of “party”.  And section  656:5 says that only a “party” can have its own party column.