On March 7, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed the results of its March 4 conference. For the third conference in a row, the Court considered, but did not decide, whether to hear the two cases concerning the Illinois special U.S. Senate election. The cases are Burris v Judge, 10-367, and Quinn v Judge, 10-821. Presumably the Court will next consider whether to hear these cases at its next conference, which is on March 18.
Illinois Representative Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago) has introduced HB 2010. It changes ballot access for independent candidates, but not for the nominees of unqualified parties. The bill lowers the number of signatures for independent candidates, so that the number required matches what a candidate running in a partisan primary needs. For statewide office, the number of signatures would drop from 25,000 to 5,000.
However, the bill would also provide that independent candidate petitions are due 75 days after the primary. The 2012 Illinois primary is March 20, so if the bill passed, the independent candidate petition deadline would be June 3. Under current law, it is June 25. It is very likely the June 3 petition deadline would be declared unconstitutional as to independent presidential candidates. June petition deadlines for independent presidential candidates, or all independent candidates, have been declared too early in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, and South Dakota.
HB 2010 also says no one may circulate an independent candidate petition earlier than primary day, and says no one who ran in a partisan primary for any office can then become an independent candidate, for any office, that same year. Thanks to Phil Huckelberry for this news.
The Alabama Senate Constitution, Campaign Finance, Ethics & Elections Committee will hear SB 17 on March 8, Tuesday. This is the bill by Senator Cam Ward to lower the number of signatures for independent candidates (for office other than President) from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1.5%. Senator Ward is working on amending the bill so it makes the same change for minor party candidates, at least for statewide offices and U.S. House.
Currently, Alabama is the only state in which the easier petition method (either independent, or new party) for getting onto the November ballot, for non-presidential statewide office, is harder than 2% of the last vote cast. The existing 3% requirement was passed in 1995. Before then, it had been 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. The legislature tripled the requirement because it was angry that a Patriot Party candidate for partisan county office had been elected, even though he was a “sore loser.” Of course, if the legislature had been angry about a sore loser, the more rational response would have been to outlaw sore losers, instead of punishing all independent and minor party candidates. The Patriot Party candidate who was elected in 1994, even though he had lost the Democratic primary, was William Roberson, elected to the Greene County Commission.
On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Nevada Commission on Ethics v Carrigan, 10-568. In 2006, a Sparks, Nevada city councilmember, Michael Carrigan, voted to approve a measure allowing casinos to be built within certain parts of Sparks that had previously been off-limits for casinos. Before he voted, he publicly acknowledged that the individual seeking to build the new casino was his friend and former campaign manager. However, Carrigan pointed out that he himself had no pecuniary interest in the casino. The bill was defeated by the city council on a 3-2 vote, so even if Carrigan had abstained (instead of voting “yes”), the result of the vote would have been the same.
The Nevada Commission on Ethics censured Carrigan. But the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the censure was improper, because elected public officials have a First Amendment right to cast votes. The Nevada Supreme Court acknowledged that elected officials can be required to recuse themselves on issues in which they have a vested interest, but said the particular law that authorized the censure is too broad. The issue of whether the casino should be built had been the leading political issue when Carrigan was re-elected, and because the councilmember won his election, it is reasonable to assume that his vote to approve the casino was a reflection of majority voter sentiment. Therefore, Carrigan points out that if he had not been allowed to vote, his constituents would have gone unrepresented. The decision of the Nevada Supreme Court is Carrigan v Commission on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not been clear about whether voting is First Amendment activity or not. If the Court rules that a vote by an elected public official is entitled to some First Amendment protection, that will have implications for votes by ordinary voters as well.
Alabama will hold a special election on June 28 to fill the vacant seat in the State House of Representatives, 105th district. The legislator elected in November 2010, Spencer Collier, resigned in January to take a job in the executive branch of state government. The election will be between Bill Atkinson, the Constitution Party nominee, and whoever wins the special Republican primary on March 22.
The Constitution Party qualified to run in this special election by submitting a petition signed by at least 235 valid signatures (3% of the vote cast in this district in November 2010). No Democrat filed to run, even though a Democrat would not have needed to collect any signatures. Democrats didn’t run for this seat in November 2010 either. The seat is in southern Mobile County. Thanks to Joshua Cassity for this news.
