U.S. District Court Again Refuses to Enjoin Use of Rhode Island Straight-Ticket Device

On September 16, a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island refused to enjoin use of the state’s “straight-ticket” device on general election ballots.  Lusi v Mollis, 10-350.  The decision was not surprising, because the same judge had denied relief on September 1 in another case that was virtually identical.  That case was Healey v State, 10-316.

Straight-ticket devices injure independent candidates, because they permit a voter to cast a vote on all partisan races without even looking at the ballot to see who is running.  And, independent candidates never have their own straight-ticket device.  See this story.

U.S. District Court in Virginia Hears Libertarian Party Case on Residency of Petition Circulators

On September 10, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema heard arguments in Libertarian Party of Virginia v Virginia State Board of Elections, 1:10-cv-615, eastern district.  The issue is whether Virginia may require all petition circulators for U.S. House candidates to be residents of the district.  In this case, the petitioner is the candidate himself, Matt Mosley.  He doesn’t live in the 8th district, but that is the district he is running in.  The U.S. Constitution does not require candidates for U.S. House to live in the district they are seeking to represent.

A similar Virginia case, before another judge, already lost in U.S. District Court in a different division of the eastern district.  That case is Lux v Rodrigues.  That case also involves a candidate who circulated his own petition, and in which all those signatures were disqualified because the candidate, Herb Lux, doesn’t live in the district he hopes to represent.  That case is already before the 4th circuit, Lux v Rodrigues, 10-1997.  On September 15, the 4th circuit refused to order the State Board of Elections to check the Lux petition to see if it was actually signed by as many as 1,000 registered voters (the legal requirement for U.S. House candidates in Virginia is 1,000 signatures).  The 4th circuit order is not signed by any particular judge and has no text explaining the basis for the denial.

Connecticut Supreme Court Hears Ballot Access Case Involving Lost Paperwork

On September 15, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Butts v Bysiewicz, SC 18663.  The issue is whether the Democratic Party’s candidate for Probate Judge, John W. Butts, should be on the ballot.  The documents showing him to be the party’s nominee were either lost in the postal mail, or lost in the Secretary of State’s office.  See this story.  Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

Arizona State Court of Appeals Sets Hearing Date in Case over Whether Tucson May Keep Partisan Elections

The Arizona State Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in City of Tucson v State of Arizona on September 30 at 3 p.m.  This is the lawsuit over whether Tucson has a right to retain partisan elections for electing city officials.  Tucson is the only city in Arizona that prefers to use partisan elections.  Last year the Arizona legislature passed a law requiring all cities to use non-partisan elections.  The case is City of Tucson v State of Arizona, 2ca-cv-2101-83.

South Carolina Campaign Finance Law Struck Down

On September 13, U.S. District Court Judge Terry L. Wooten, a Bush, Jr. appointee, struck down a South Carolina campaign finance law that requires all groups that spend as much as $500 to “influence the outcome” of an election for state office to register as a Political Committee.  A Political Committee is required to file recurring certified campaign reports; maintain records of contributions, contributors, and expenditures; comply with various bank account requirements; reject anonymous and cash contributions; and disclose information about contributions and expenditures.  The decision is South Carolina Citizens for Life, Inc., v Krawcheck, 4:06-cv-2773.

Groups whose major purpose is to influence elections must still comply with the requirements.  The decision relates to organizations that were not created merely to influence the outcome of elections.