Georgia Court Hearing Set in Mary Norwood Petition Case

Posted on by June 25, 2010
2

On Wednesday, June 30, a Georgia Superior Court in Atlanta will hear Norwood v Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, the case over whether to invalidate 9,000 signatures collected by independent candidate Mary Norwood.  She is running for President of the Fulton County Commission, a partisan post.  She needs approximately 22,000 valid signatures by July 13.

The petition form is provided by election officials.  It asks not only for the name and address of each signer, but for the county.  Norwood had asked permission, and received it, to make her own petition blanks with “Fulton” pre-printed in the county column.  She had found that, otherwise, some signers put “Yes” in the county column, and others put ditto marks.

Seventh Circuit Rejects Votes Cast for Ineligible Candidate

Posted on by June 25, 2010
2

On June 23, the 7th circuit rejected a claim by some Chicago voters that their votes should have been counted in the February 2007 election for Alderman.  They voted for Ambrosio Medrano, who was on the ballot for this non-partisan office.  However, the State Supreme Court had ruled four days before the election that Medrano was not eligible because he was an ex-felon, and Illinois election law does not permit ex-felons to hold elective municipal office.

Because it was too late to remove Medrano’s name from the ballot, election officials posted signs saying votes for Medrano would not be counted.  Actually, though, his votes were counted.  He received 178 votes.  A month after the election, the voter-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court.  It isn’t clear what relief they were seeking, except apparently to have the 178 votes recorded in the official election returns.  The 7th circuit decision is only six pages and does not discuss whether the U.S. Constitution has any bearing on the issue.  It essentially says the State Courts had already ruled.  It implies, but does not say, that voters have no right to vote for a candidate who is not eligible to hold the office.  The case is Parra v Neal, 09-1404.  The oral argument had been over one year ago, on June 5, 2009.

North Dakota Democrats Seem Unhappy that Libertarian Candidate is on Ballot

Posted on by June 24, 2010
7

The Grand Forks, North Dakota newspaper has this story about the aftermath of last week’s decision by the Secretary of State to put Joshua Voytek on the November ballot as the Libertarian Party nominee for Public Service Commission.

Voytek was left off the Libertarian Primary ballot because the Secretary of State’s office misfiled his declaration of candidacy.  By the time the office found that paperwork, the primary ballots had already been printed.  Secretary of State Al Jaeger consulted with the Attorney General, and they agreed that the only fair way to handle the problem was to list Voytek on the November ballot even though, technically, he had not been nominated in the Libertarian primary.  But, according to the recent story, some Democrats are unhappy with that solution to the problem.  Also, see this editorial in the June 25 Bismarck Tribune.

U.S. District Court in Florida Hears Lawsuit Over Tea Party Existence

Posted on by June 24, 2010
Reply

On June 24, a U.S. District Court in Miami, Florida, held a hearing in South Florida Tea Party, Inc. v Tea Party.  The case was filed on January 19, 2010, by various Tea Party groups that are not themselves qualified political parties.  They are seeking a court ruling that the ballot-qualified Tea Party should be either removed from the ballot, or forced to choose another name.  See this story in the Sunshine State News.