The South Carolina legislature passed H.3746 on June 3, the last day of the session. It makes ballot access worse for independent candidates. Parts of it can be challenged in court. For a description of the bill, see today’s earlier post about the bill, four blog posts down.
The Wall Street Journal has this article about the movement to change New York city elections from partisan elections, to non-partisan elections. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link. The article’s title is not a good title, but the article itself is worth reading.
In the last few days, the state governments of California and Kansas have both made their initial responses to lawsuits in federal court that challenge residency requirements for circulators.
In Kansas, the case is Constitution Party of Kansas v Biggs, 10-4043. Kansas has informally told attorneys for the party that they will not contest the part of the lawsuit that says out-of-state circulators may not work in Kansas. The Constitution Party is not on the ballot in Kansas but would like to hire paid petitioners to get itself on.
By contrast, in California, where the Los Angeles County Libertarian Party recently challenged state laws that say circulators for candidate petitions (for district office) may not work outside their home district and/or their home county, the state filed this brief on June 1. It says the plaintiffs don’t have standing, and also that there is no evidence that the state enforces these laws.
California has many election code sections that regulate the residency of circulators: 9209 says city initiatives can only be circulated by residents of that city; 11045 says recall petitions can only be circulated by residents of the district of the office-holder who is being recalled; 8451 says independent candidate petitions can only be circulated by residents of the district; 9021 says initiatives can only be circulated by state residents; 8066 says petitions to get someone on a primary ballot can only be circulated by residents of that district; 8106 says petitions in lieu of filing fee can only be circulated by residents of the district.
California is in the 9th circuit, which ruled in 2008 that Arizona could not bar out-of-state circulators from working on an independent petition.
On June 3, “Bud” Chiles said he will run for Governor of Florida as an independent candidate. See this story.
“Bud” Chiles’ father, Lawton Chiles, was U.S. Senator from Florida 1970-1988, and then Governor of Florida 1990-1998. The senior Chiles was a Democrat who never lost an election. He defeated Jeb Bush in the 1994 gubernatorial election. Jeb Bush became Governor of Florida in 1998, after Chiles left the office.
The South Carolina House has set debate for Thursday, June 3, on H.3746. It makes ballot access worse for independent candidates. Current law does not require petitions to identify who circulated the petition. The bill not only requires the circulator to sign the petition, it requires that all sheets be notarized, which is expensive. Also the bill requires independent candidates to file a declaration of candidacy no later than primary day in June. The bill does not have an exemption for independent presidential candidates, so it would probably be held unconstitutional as to presidential candidates. Finally, the bill says the voters who registered to vote during the period 30 days before the petition is submitted may not sign the petition. That is probably also unconstitutional, because it discriminates against newly-registered voters.
If you live in South Carolina, please phone your state representative and ask him or her not to support H.3746. It has already passed both Houses, but it is back in the House because the Senate amended it. The legislature is expected to adjourn on June 4, Friday.
South Carolina law for independent candidate petitions is already so restrictive that no independent has ever qualified for a government-printed ballot in this state for either House of Congress, or for Governor. Petitions for those offices require 10,000 signatures. Petitions for legislative independents require 5% of the number of registered voters.
