Since the California primary election on June 8, this blog has generally avoided posting links to commentary about California’s Proposition 14, because so much of that recent commentary just rehashes what has already been said in the last few months. However, this Atascadero News editorial about Proposition 14 makes a somewhat new point.
On June 25, a pending lawsuit in U.S. District Court, concerning permissible party names, was settled out-of court. Jimmy McMillan had sued to force the state to agree to print “Rent is Too Damn High Party” on the November 2010 ballot, if it gets the needed 15,000 signatures. The state had said that label is too long. McMillan had filed the lawsuit, alleging the real motivation behind the state’s denial of his party label is moral disapproval of the word “Damn”. The case was settled when the state and the potential candidate agreed that “Rent is 2 Damn High” will be the label. See this 3-page settlement order. The case was McMillan v New York State Board of Elections, eastern district, 10-cv-2502. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.
U.S. District Court Judge Roberto A. Lange will hold a hearing in Constitution Party of South Dakota v Nelson on July 16, at 3 p.m. This is the case that challenges the number of signatures needed for a member of a small qualified party to get on that party’s primary ballot. South Dakota requires 250 signatures for Constitution Party members this year to run for statewide office, and only registered party members may sign. The Constitution Party only has 345 registered members in the state. Judge Lange is an Obama appointee. UPDATE: this hearing has been changed from July 16 to July 15.
The South Dakota law is peculiar. If the Constitution Party had polled at least 8,388 votes for Governor in November 2006, then its members running in 2010 for statewide office would only need 84 signatures of party members. But because the Constitution Party only polled 4,010 votes in November 2006 for Governor, it is treated as a “new” party and “new” parties have a more difficult primary petition requirement.
The Libertarian Party won a lawsuit on this same issue in South Dakota in 2000, but that lawsuit was won on statutory construction grounds. In 2007 the legislature changed the law’s wording, so now the same issue must be fought all over again, on constitutional grounds this time.
The U.S. Supreme Court order list for the morning of June 28 does not have any order for Republican National Committee v Federal Election Commission, 09-1287. On the afternoon of June 28, the Court will again consider again whether to take this case. It is fairly likely there will be an order on Tuesday, June 29, about the Court’s action on this case.
On June 28, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd died. He had been first elected to that seat in 1958, and was 92 years old. West Virginia law says a special election must be held if the vacancy occurred more than two and one-half years before the end of the term. The next regular election for this seat would have been in 2012. Byrd died more than two and one-half years before end of his term. So, one would think there will be a special election in 2010 to fill the last two years of his seat.
On the other hand, there is no provision for a special election that occurs too late for a primary, and no provision for a special primary. West Virginia’s primary this year was May 11. See this Washington Post story.
The Washington Post story does not mention that the deadline for independent candidates, and for the nominees of unqualified parties, is August 1. In theory, candidates could get on the ballot for a special election by petition, if they act fairly quickly, but how this impacts on the state’s decision on whether to hold a special election is undetermined. UPDATE: the deadline is July 30, not August 1. Thanks to Jeff Becker for that correction.
