California is the only state in which every candidate may list his or her occupation on the ballot. John Eastman, a Republican running for California Attorney General, has chosen “Assistant Attorney General.” His opponents are crying foul, because even though he lives in California, he is not an Assistant Attorney General in California. The title is bestowed on him by the state of South Dakota, which has hired him to work on one particular case. See this story.

California law does not permit more than three words for an occupation on the ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Moore v Hosemann, 09-982, at its April 2 conference. Any decision would not be released until Monday, April 5. This is the case over whether Brian Moore, Socialist Party presidential candidate, should have been on the ballot in 2008 in Mississippi. The actual issue now before the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t involve the election law itself, but whether the 5th circuit should have certified the case to a state court (instead the 5th circuit said the case is not moot but that Moore must file the case all over again in state court). Another issue in the case is whether, when state officials force the plaintiff to hire a process server, must the state reimburse the plaintiff?

According to this story, one candidate for city office in Bayonne, New Jersey, has accused his rival of deliberately making a copy of his already-submitted ballot access petition, and then canvassing the same voters who had signed, urging them to sign for another candidate for the same office. If voters sign for two candidates for the same office, and there is only one seat to be filled, then both signatures are invalid.

As the news spread, yet another candidate, for another office, who had already submitted his petition, retrieved it. He said he would turn it in again, just before the deadline, to make sure that his opponent doesn’t attempt the same tactic.

Laws that make it illegal for voters to sign for two opposing candidates cause this type of mischief. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Doe v Reed that ballot access petitions are not public, that would also alleviate this problem to a certain extent.