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.

Nevada to Hold Special U.S. House Election on September 13

Posted on by April 29, 2011
8

Because Dean Heller, the Congressmember from Nevada’s 2nd district, has been appointed to the U.S. Senate, his seat is now vacant and a special election will be held to replace him on September 13. But Nevada’s law on special U.S. House elections is so poorly written, no one knows if parties nominate candidates, or if candidates just file as individuals. The only thing known for sure is that there will be no primaries for the special election.

Ever since Nevada has been a state, it has never before had a vacancy in one of its U.S. House seats in the middle of a term.

California Governor Now Favors Putting Initiative on Ballot

Posted on by April 29, 2011
4

On April 28, California Governor Jerry Brown spoke in Los Angeles and said he now favors putting an initiative on the ballot to ask voters if they wish to make certain tax changes. See this story. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats in the legislature, who are backing three separate bills to make it more difficult to put initiatives on the ballot, will now stop supporting those bills. The bills are SB168, to make it illegal to pay circulators on a per-signature basis; AB 481, to make all initiative circulators (volunteers and paid workers alike) wear buttons; and AB 651, to require elaborate paperwork for companies that hire paid circulators.