Nevada Court Sets May 19 Hearing in Case over Special Congressional Election

Posted on by May 10, 2011
2

A Nevada state district court will hear Nevada Republican Party v State on May 19. This is the case over whether the upcoming special U.S. House election in Nevada will be one in which various political parties nominate candidates, or whether individuals will simply file as individuals (although with a party label for each individual). The Secretary of State, a Democrat, had ruled for the latter alternative. The Nevada Republican Party had then sued, arguing that the Secretary of State’s interpretation is incorrect. If the Republican Party wins the case, each ballot-qualified party will nominate someone by party meeting. In either event, independent candidates, and members of unqualified parties, can also get on the ballot with a petition of 100 signatures.

Delaware Legislature Passes Bill, Restricting Whom Parties May Nominate

Posted on by May 10, 2011
2

On May 10, the Delaware Senate passed HB 11, which tells parties that they cannot nominate non-members. The vote was 16-2. Delaware legislators seem to have little awareness that the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1986 in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that it would violate the First Amendment freedom of association clause for a state to tell a party that it can’t nominate a non-member. Also, on March 31, 2011, a U.S. District Court in New Mexico struck down New Mexico’s law that tells parties they can’t nominate non-members.

The two Senators who voted “No” are both Democrats. They are George Bunting and Robert Venables.

Electronic Signatures on Petitions Case Argued in California State Court of Appeals

Posted on by May 10, 2011
Reply

On May 10, the California Court of Appeals heard 30 minutes of argument in Ni v Slocum, A128721. This is the case over whether electronic signatures can ever be considered valid on California initiative and referendum petitions. This story was written before the hearing and explains more about the case. At the hearing, the three judges seemed to show a reluctance to grapple with the technical issues, and seemed to believe that the matter is too complicated for the judicial branch, and that it is best left to the legislative branch.

New Jersey Federal Judge May Rely on Jury to Help Decide if Carl Lewis Should be on Ballot

Posted on by May 10, 2011
1

According to this story, the U.S. District Court Judge who has the case over whether Carl Lewis should be on the Democratic primary ballot of June 7, 2011 (for State Senate, 8th district) may rely on a federal jury to decide the issue. This makes it appear that the court is still pondering whether or not Lewis meets the 4-year in-state residency requirement, as opposed to deciding whether the 4-year residency requirement violates the U.S. Constitution. This is peculiar, because the state courts have already decided that Lewis has not been a resident of New Jersey during the last four years.

UPDATE: see this story about the court hearing.