The Boston Globe has this interesting article about the difficulty for Republican presidential candidates to plan their campaigns for the nomination, due to the great uncertainty about 2012 presidential primary and caucus dates. Thanks to Josh Putnam’s Frontloading HQ for the link.
Massachusetts Representative Harriett Stanley (D-West Newbury) has introduced two bills to restrict people who circulate initiative and referendum petitions. HB 207 says, “No person shall engage in the collection of signatures for an initiative or referendum petition for money or any other thing of value.” That bill, if enacted, would be held unconstitutional under the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court opinion Meyer v Grant, 486 U.S. 414. That unanimous decision held that petitioning is First Amendment activity and that states can’t ban paying people to circulate petitions.
Representative Stanley also introduced HB 206, which requires circulators to wear a badge showing their name and address. That bill, if enacted, would be unconstitutional under Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999), which struck down a Colorado law requiring paid circulators to wear a badge giving their name and address. That U.S. Supreme Court decision did not decide whether a state can require a circulator to wear a badge that tells if he or she is being paid. HB 206 also requires the badge to say how much the circulator is being paid. And it requires the badge to say who the employer is, and which organizations are paying the employer. All this must be clearly visible and in 14-point type. A circulator who violates this law can be fined $500, and his or her employer can be fined $5,000. Thanks to Carla Howell for this news.
On February 23, this rebuttal brief was filed in the 7th circuit in Stone v Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago, no. 11-1085. This is the lawsuit that challenges the requirement that candidates running for citywide non-partisan office in Chicago need 12,500 valid signatures.
On February 22, the Green Party of Arkansas filed this reply brief in the 8th circuit, in Green Party of Arkansas v Martin, 10-3106. This is the case that challenges the Arkansas law that removes a party from the ballot after each election, unless it polled 3% of the vote for the office at the top of the ballot (Governor in midterm years, President in presidential years).
On February 22, Connecticut filled vacancies in three State Senate seats, and six State House seats. Here are some preliminary results, although they are unofficial and don’t break down the vote by party. Many of the races had candidates who were the nominees of more than one party. When the official results are known, the vote cast on each party line will be known. Check back here for the official results.
The unofficial results for the 126th House district show that three independent candidates each outpolled the Republican nominee. Verna Kearney, one independent, polled 373 votes; another independent, Robert Keeley, polled 191 votes; another independent polled 89 votes; and the Republican nominee, James Keyser, only polled 82.
