On March 3, Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White was indicted for having voted in the May 2010 primary in a precinct in which he did not live. He was registered to vote in that precinct. See this story.
White was not Secretary of State at the time. He was elected in November 2010. He was the Republican nominee, and he received 57.1% of the vote. The indictment was not a shock, because news reports about this have been circulating since last year. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The Pennsylvania ballot access case, Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Cortes, 10-3205, will be decided by these three judges: (1) Jane Roth, a Bush Sr. appointee from Delaware; (2) Maryanne Trump Barry, a Clinton appointee from New Jersey; (3) Michael Chagares, a Bush Jr. appointee now working in New Jersey, although he has Pennsylvania roots.
Judge Roth has had election law cases involving minor parties in the past. She wrote the decision in Patriot Party of Allegheny County v Allegheny County Elections Department in 1996, ruling that if Pennsylvania lets the Democratic and Republican Parties jointly nominate candidates for partisan School Board races, the state must let minor parties also use fusion. The state was granted a rehearing en banc, but the en banc panel reaffirmed the original decision. The en banc opinion was released in 1999, and by then the case was re-named Reform Party of Allegheny County v Allegheny County Elections Department. Judge Roth wrote the 1999 decision as well as the 1996 decision. Judge Roth also wrote the opinion in Belitskus v Pizzingrilli, striking down Pennsylvania’s mandatory candidate filing fees.
However, in 2006, Judge Roth ruled against Pennsylvania’s minor parties in Rogers v Cortes, the lawsuit in which the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties argued that since they had each polled enough votes in 2004 to meet the state’s definition of “political party” they should not be forced to submit 67,000 signatures for their statewide nominees. And she ruled against the Constitution Party again, in 2009, in Baldwin v Cortes. That case argued that Pennsylvania’s August 1 petition deadline was illegitimate because the legislature had never passed it. However, the 3rd circuit didn’t agree.
The other two judges in the current case have never had any cases involving ballot access. Judge Barry is somewhat well-known for being the sister of Donald Trump.
The current case challenges Pennsylvania’s system of putting minor party and independent candidates in jeopardy of paying over $100,000 in fees if they submit petitions that don’t have enough valid signatures. It also challenges the state’s refusal to tally the number of write-ins for most write-in candidates, even when those candidates have requested a tallly. And it challenges the law that says parties must submit large numbers of signatures for their nominees unless they have registration membership of 15% of the state total.
The Third Circuit discourages oral arguments in most cases, and will not hold an oral argument in this case.
On March 2, the Oklahoma House Rules Committee passed HB 1615, which moves the primary (for office other than President) from July to June. The bill also moves the deadline for a group to submit a petition to be recognized as a party from May 1 to March 1.
A very similar bill, SB 602, had already passed the Senate Rules Committee on February 22. As noted at this blog earlier, a petition deadline of March 1 to establish a party would almost certainly be held unconstitutional. Furthermore, HB 1615 says that a group is not permitted to file a notice of intent to circulate a party petition after January 1 of an election year. In effect, this means it will be literally impossible for a party to be recognized in Oklahoma unless it was formed in the odd year before the election year.
Two bills are pending in the Georgia House of Representatives to require birth certificates for presidential candidates. The first, HB 37, was introduced on January 10 by Representative Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta). It requires political parties to submit “original documentation” for candidates who appear on that party’s presidential primary, and also for the party to submit “original documentation” for its nominee in November.
The second bill, HB 401, was introduced on February 28 by Representative Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross). It originally had 93 co-sponsors, but now it has 89, because four co-sponsors have removed their names. The Georgia House has 116 Republicans, 63 Democrats, and one independent. All of the co-sponsors are Republicans. HB 401 requires “A certified exact copy of the candidate’s first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidate’s date, time, and place of birth; the name of the specific hospital or other location at which the candidate was born; the attending physician at the candidate’s birth; the names of the candidate’s birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signtures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidate’s birth.” However, the bill says if such a document does not exist, the candidate shall attach other documents. The bill does not say who is responsible for furnishing the birth certificate, for purposes of the general election ballot. The parties are responsible for submitting such documents for purposes of the presidential primary ballot.
HB 401 also says that if any presidential elector votes for someone in the electoral college who has not submitted documentation of birth, the elector will be guilty of a “misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.” Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.
