This newspaper story from the Sunshine State News, about Florida’s ballot-qualified parties, is unusually informative. It lists all 30 of the minor parties, and also provides the name of the party’s chair, and tells how many registered voters each has, and whether it has any candidates this year (most of them don’t).
On June 24, a Texas lower state court judge removed the Green Party from the ballot, because the judge believes that the party had no right to receive a large indirect donation that paid for the petition drive. See this brief story. The decision will be appealed. The case is Texas Democratic Party v Texas Green Party, d-1-gn-10-001924.
Texas law has always been very insistent that a signature on a petition is equivalent to a primary vote. That is why Texas is the only state that won’t let primary voters sign a petition to place a new party on the ballot. It would be unthinkable to cancel a primary election outcome just because the winner of the primary received campaign contributions that were in some way unlawful. If this decision stands, it shows that Texas does not really believe that a signature on a petition is equivalent to a primary vote.
Canada will be holding a national election this year, although the date isn’t set yet. This EKOS Poll says that the Green Party is likely to win two seats, one in British Columbia and one in Ontario.
The Green Party of Canada has not yet won any seats in Parliament.
The poll also projects these national popular vote percentages: Conservative 31.0%, Liberal 27.7%, New Democratic 16.5%, Green 13.0%, Bloc Quebecois 9.3%.
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon will hold a hearing in Citizens in Charge v Gale on June 25 at 2:30 pm. This hearing will deal only with the issue of whether Nebraska can ban out-of-state circulators. The Libertarian Party, a co-plaintiff, is trying to petition onto the ballot and needs 5,921 valid signatures by August 1. The drive is complicated because the party needs approximately one-third of those signatures from each of the state’s three U.S. House districts.
The hearing is at the federal courthouse in Omaha at 111 South 18th Plaza.
On June 11, U.S. District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer, a Bush Jr. appointee, issued an injunction against a Colorado law that virtually bans paying circulators on a per signature basis. The Independence Institute v Buescher, 10-cv-00609. The case had been filed on March 15, 2010.
The injunction was issued after a trial, at which a great deal of evidence was presented. A key witness was Professor Daniel Smith of the University of Florida, an expert on ballot questions who has examined actual petitions looking for evidence of forged signatures, and has conducted other types of research on petitioning as well. He testified, “I honestly don’t think that the pay per signature model necessarily induces fraud.” Also, the state’s expert witness, Ted Blaszak, testified that fraud is seldom committed by professional petitioners. The evidence also showed that a ban on paying per signatures increases the cost of getting a measure or a candidate on the ballot, and also that many of the best circulators will not work unless they are paid on a per signature basis. The injunction is 39 pages and distinguishes the precedents that have upheld a ban on paying per signature, by finding that in those cases, there was little or no evidence presented. Thanks to Paul Jacob for this news.
