Indiana Legislature Passes Bill, Clarifying that Republican Party is Still Ballot-Qualified Even if its Secretary of State Nominee is Found to have Been Ineligible

Posted on by April 30, 2011
6

On April 29, the Indiana legislature passed HB 1242, an omnibus election law bill. One part of the bill clarifies that even if Republican Secretary of State Charlie White is found to have been ineligible to run in 2010, the Republican Party is still ballot-qualified. Indiana defines “political party” as a group that polled at least 2% for Secretary of State. There is some possibility that White will be found ineligible to have run, because he may not have been registered to vote properly in 2010. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

If White is found ineligible, the Democratic nominee from 2010, who placed second, will assume the office. But if White resigns before that happens, then Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, can appoint a replacement. Or if White is found guilty of the crime of voting at a precinct at which he did not live, the Governor could replace him. However, White is fighting to clear his name and is not expected to resign.

Alicia Garza & Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont Article about Big Money Campaign Against Instant Runoff Voting in San Francisco

Posted on by April 30, 2011
16

Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont and Alicia Garza have this article in New America Media, explaining that the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce have been carrying on a public relations campaign against Instant Runoff Voting in San Francisco and Oakland. The article does not mention the lawsuit against San Francisco’s Instant Runoff Voting system, but that lawsuit is also part of the campaign against IRV. It is called Dudum v City and County of San Francisco.

The same law firm, Nielsen Merksamer, that is trying to overturn IRV in San Francisco, is the same law firm defending California’s top-two election system in the lawsuits Field v Bowen and Chamness v Bowen. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link to the article.

Arizona Governor Signs Bill that Puts Green Party on 2012 Ballot

Posted on by April 30, 2011
9

On the evening of April 28, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2304, an omnibus election law bill. Among many other provisions, it says that when a party qualifies for the ballot, it gets the next two elections, not just the next election. Because the Arizona Green Party had successfully petitioned in 2010, it is now automatically on the 2012 ballot, even though it didn’t meet the already-existing requirements for a party to remain on the ballot (that it poll 5% for Governor, or that it have registration of at least two-thirds of 1% of the state total).

The bill also legalizes out-of-state circulators for all types of petitions, not just petitions for independent presidential candidates. The legislature’s web page still does not show that HB 2304 has been signed, but this newspaper article carries the news of the Governor’s actions on Friday evening relative to bills.

U.S. District Court Denies Relief to North Carolina Independent Candidate who Argued one Petition is Enough

Posted on by April 30, 2011
2

On April 28, a U.S. District Court in North Carolina declined to provide any relief to Mark Brody, an independent candidate for the legislature in both 2008 and 2010. North Carolina has the nation’s 3rd highest petition requirement for independent candidates for the legislature, 4% of the number of registered voters. Only Georgia and South Carolina, which require 5% of the number of registered voters, are harder. Generally, 4% of the number of registered voters is more onerous than Illinois’ requirement of 5% of the last vote cast.

Brody had successfully met the 4% petition test in 2008, and he had appeared on the ballot in November 2008 and polled 30% of the vote in a two-person race. He wanted to run for the same seat in 2010, and he had sued to win an exemption from re-petitioning in 2010. He argued that independent candidates are discriminated against, relative to political parties. In virtually every state, a party that polled a certain share of the vote in the previous election is then automatically on the ballot in the next election. But neither North Carolina, or any state, gives an independent candidate credit for a high share of the vote in a past election, so as to exempt him or her from petitioning again in the next election. The only exception is that Georgia lets an independent candidate who was elected avoid the petition when that independent comes up for re-election.

The judge said that he was sympathetic, and thought the case has logic on its side, but that he would still not rule in Brody’s favor because there are no favorable precedents for this type of case. He encouraged Brody to appeal. The case is Brody v North Carolina State Board of Elections, western district, 3:10-cv-383. Thanks to Jordon Greene for this news.

Eighth Circuit Reinstates Minnesota Lawsuit against Law Criminalizing False Statements in Ballot Question Campaigns

Posted on by April 30, 2011
1

On April 28, the 8th circuit issued this 22-page opinion in 281 Care Committee v Arneson, 10-1558. In 2007, some groups opposed to certain local ballot measures to increase funding for public schools had sued in federal court, to overturn a Minnesota law that makes it a crime to knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth to make a false statement about a proposed ballot measure. They had sued after they had been accused of breaking the law. The U.S. District Court had dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds.

The 8th circuit said there are no procedural problems with this lawsuit, and sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for a decision on the merits. The 8th circuit wrote, “The First Amendment does not allow the courts of appeals to decide whether a category of speech, on the whole, tends to contain socially worthless information…We do not, of course, hold today that a state may never regulate false speech in this context. Rather, we hold that it may only do so when it satisfies the First Amendment test required for content-based speech restrictions: that any regulation be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.” This decision is a good sign for the pending lawsuits in various states in the 8th circuit against laws that make it illegal for out-of-state circulators to work. Such lawsuits are pending in South Dakota and Nebraska. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link.