Trial in Doe v Reed, Petition Privacy Case, Set for September 27, 2011

Posted on by February 25, 2011
Reply

A U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington, will conduct a trial in Doe v Reed starting on September 27, 2011. This the case filed in July 2009 over whether people who signed one particular referendum petition are entitled to keep their names and addresses from being made public. The U.S. District Court had ruled that the First Amendment protects privacy for petition signers, but the 9th circuit had reversed. Then, on June 24, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court had issued an opinion saying that there is no such privacy right in general, but that if the proponents can show that there is a reasonable chance that they would be harassed, then they are entitled to privacy.

Thus, the trial will be to determine whether the signers of this one particular referendum petition qualify for privacy. The subject of this particular referendum was whether or not to rescind a bill passed by the Washington state legislature for civil unions for same-sex couples. The referendum was held in 2009 and the voters upheld the civil unions law.

In a sense, the people who filed the lawsuit have already partially won, because while the case is pending, their names and addresses continue to be withheld. As time passes, fewer and fewer people will even remember or care who signed the petition.

Idaho Bill Signed, Moves Primary One Week Earlier

Posted on by February 25, 2011
Reply

On February 23, Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed HB 60, the Secretary of State’s first omnibus election law bill this session. The bill moves the primary for all office from the fourth week in May to the third week in May, along with lots of other minor election law changes.

The Secretary of State plans a second omnibus bill, to be introduced soon, that will lower the number of signatures needed for an independent presidential candidate. The existing law was declared unconstitutional last year and the state did not appeal. This second omnibus election law bill will contain many other unrelated election law provisions.

Hearing Set in 8th Circuit on South Dakota Petitioner Residency Issue

Posted on by February 24, 2011
Reply

The 8th circuit will hear oral arguments in Constitution Party of South Dakota v Nelson, 10-2910, on March 15 in Minneapolis, at 9 a.m. This is the case that challenges a South Dakota law that prohibits out-of-state circulators for candidate petitions, and also for initiative petitions. Oddly, the law does not prohibit out-of-state circulators to work on a petition to qualify a new party.

The lawsuit was filed in 2010. The Constitution Party was already ballot-qualified. But it needed experienced petitioners to complete the petition to get its gubernatorial candidate on its own primary ballot. The law required the candidate to get 250 signatures, and only registered party members could sign. The party only had about 320 registered members in the state. It is obviously extremely difficult to get the signatures of 250 people when there are only 320 eligible signers, especially in a state as physically large as South Dakota. Yet the state did not permit the party to hire out-of-state circulators, even though it would have been legal for out-of-state circulators to work on the petition to put the party on the ballot. As a result, the party couldn’t place its own gubernatorial nominee on its own primary ballot, and therefore it had no candidate on the November ballot. And because South Dakota requires a party to poll 2.5% for Governor, the party went off the ballot.