Third Circuit Rejects Attempt to Show that Pennsylvania Petition Deadline Can't Be Enforced Because it was Never Passed by Legislature

On May 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd circuit, rejected a case filed in 2008 by Chuck Baldwin, presidential nominee of the Constitution Party that year. Here is the 8-page decision in Baldwin v Cortes, 09-2227.

The Pennsylvania election code says that minor party and independent candidate petitions are due in early May in presidential election years. However, the state does not enforce this deadline. The Libertarian Party and the Communist Party had both sued Pennsylvania in 1984, arguing that the petition deadline is unconstitutional. The state felt it could not defend the May deadline, so it signed a consent decree promising to accept petitions until August 1. But, in all those 26 years, the legislature has never amended the election code to put the August 1 deadline in the law.

In 2008, a U.S. District Court in Ohio ordered the Secretary of State to put the Libertarian Party, and the Socialist Party, on the ballot with no petition. The basis was that Article II of the U.S. Constitution says only state legislatures (not “states”) can write election laws for presidential elections. Because Ohio’s ballot access law had been held unconstitutional in 2006, and the legislature had not replaced it, the Secretary of State had drafted emergency regulations cutting the number of signatures in half. The court in Ohio said only legislatures can write ballot access restrictions, and left Ohio with no petition requirement for new parties. So, in 2008, when the Constitution Party didn’t finish its Pennsylvania petition until August 26, and the state rejected its petition for being late, the party filed a lawsuit, hoping to use the Ohio precedent to avoid being subject to the August 1 deadline.

The 3rd circuit says, “Unlike the Ohio Secretary of State in Brunner, here the Secretary of the Commonwealth promulgated no new rule. Instead, the Secretary merely enforced a rule that had been in place by court-approved consent decree since 1984.” The 3rd circuit decision does not actually say whether it agrees with the theory used in Ohio.

Lawsuit Will Use Voting Rights Act to Attack California Decision to Hold Special State Senate Election on June 22

According to this story, three voters in Monterey County, California, are about to file a lawsuit against the June 22 special election date to fill the vacant State Senate seat, 15th district. The lawsuit will charge that holding a special election on June 22, only two weeks after the primary, represents a “change”, and therefore the date must be pre-cleared with the U.S. Justice Department, Voting Rights section. Monterey County is one of four California counties that is covered by section five of the Voting Rights Act. Monterey County is partly in the 15th district. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Areas covered by section five of the Voting Rights Act may not change any election law or election practice without approval from the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department, or from a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

South Carolina Anti-Fusion Bill Advances

On May 5, the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee passed H3067, which ends the ability of two political parties to jointly nominate the same candidate. This bill has passed the House over a year ago, on March 3, 2009, but had been dormant since then, until May 5, 2010. The Committee also amended the bill to make it effective in 2011, so even if it passed the Senate, it must return to the House for concurrence in the amendment.

A parallel bill in the Senate, S334, has not made any headway.

Because the committee vote was not unanimous, the bill is not likely to advance further. The session will probably end in two or three weeks. Senator Brad Hutto, a Democrat, opposed it.

California Author of Proposition 14 Has Poor Record on Voting Rights Bills

California’s Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado, has made public appearances in the last few months, in which he advocates for Proposition 14 and also holds himself out as a champion of voting rights. However, his record while he was in the state legislature does not suggest that he was interested in expanding voting rights.

In 2000, he voted “No” on AB 1094, which changed the deadline for a voter to register to vote from 29 days before an election, to 15 days. The bill passed and was signed into law.

In two different legislative sessions, he voted against the National Popular Vote Plan: AB 2948 in 2006, and SB 37 in 2008. The National Popular Vote Plan, if passed by California and enough other states, would end any future occurrences at which someone could assume the presidency even though that person had polled fewer popular votes than another presidential candidate. Both bills passed the legislature but both bills were vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. A 2008 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 70% of Californians support the National Popular Vote Plan.

In 2007, he voted against SB 439, which would have provided that voter intent should control whether a write-in vote is valid. Specifically, the bill would have said that if a voter write-ins on the ballot the name of a declared write-in candidate, that vote should count, even if the voter forgot, or didn’t know, to “X” the square next to the name. The bill passed but was vetoed.

In 2007, he voted against AB 1294, which said that any general law city or county is free to use Instant Runoff Voting for its own city or county elections. Current law lets charter cities implement IRV for its own elections, but does not let general law cities or counties make this decision. The bill passed but was vetoed. All popular votes during the last ten years in California charter cities, asking the voters if they wish to use IRV for their own cities, have passed.

In 2008, he voted against AB 583, which passed and was signed into law. It provides that in June 2010, the voters vote on whether to repeal a State Constitutional ban on public funding for candidates. The existing ban applies not only to the state, but to any local government. This measure is Proposition 15. Polls indicate that it is leading.

California Proposition 16 Remains on June Ballot

On the evening of May 5, a California Superior Court tentatively ruled that California’s Proposiotion 16 should remain on the June 8 primary ballot. See this story. Proposition 16 requires jurisdictions that are switching to public power to submit the decision to a popular vote, at which two-thirds of the voters must vote “yes.”

The 18-page decision in Modesto Irrigation District v Bowen, 2010-80000478, is here.