On December 28, the same three judges who ruled against the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts on November 16, refused to reconsider their ruling, in Barr v Galvin, 09-2426. This is the case over whether an unqualified party can use a stand-in presidential candidate on its petition, and then have the stand-in later withdraw and be replaced by the actual presidential nominee.
This article in California’s Capitol Weekly newspaper explains that several California legislators are very likely to be defeated in 2012 (if they try to run for re-election), because of the new Citizens Redistricting Commission process for drawing boundaries for the next decade’s legislative districts.
The article does not mention another factor that will injure incumbents. Ever since 1879, the California Constitution has required candidates for the legislature to have lived in the district for at least one year before running. However, this provision has not been enforced since the 1970’s, when California officials decided to ignore it because they believe the U.S. Constitution doesn’t permit duration of residency requirements for candidates. But a lawsuit now pending in the State Court of Appeals, Fuller v Bowen, C065237, could force the state to start enforcing it. Duration of residency requirements are especially tough for incumbents in times of redistricting. The article notes that many legislators may be forced to move, a process that is far more difficult when there is a duration of residency requirement. The lawsuit lost in Superior Court, because the Superior Court also ruled that the U.S. Constitution bans duration of residency requirements. But this is a very dubious idea. The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed New Hampshire’s 7-year duration of residency requirement in 1975, for candidates for State Senate, in a case called Sununu v Stark. Also the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 in Clements in Fashing that there is no constitutional right to be a candidate.
Two Rhode Island legislators say they will introduce a proposed state constitutional amendment in 2011, providing that when no one in a November election for federal or state office gets as much as 50% of the total vote, the state will hold a run-off in December. See this story.
One wonders if the two legislators are aware of alternate election systems that would solve the problem they perceive, without adding to the expense and probable poor voter turnout in their proposed December run-offs.
The article mentions that the Attorney General’s race last month is an example of a race in which no one got 50% in November. In that race, the vote was: Democartic 43.1%; Republican 29.0%; Moderate Party 14.4%; two independent candidates, one of whom polled 9.6% and the other 4.0%. Thanks to Tony Roza for the link.
Ballot Access News
December 1, 2010 – Volume 26, Number 7
| This issue was originally printed on white paper. |
Table of Contents
On December 28, U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline issued this 14-page ruling in Miller v Treadwell, 3:10-cv-0252. Although Joe Miller had already lost in the Alaska Supreme Court over the vote count for U.S. Senate, he had some distinct claims that had been pending in the federal case. However, the federal court rejected those arguments.
Miller first argued that the U.S. Constitution requires that only state legislatures may create laws relating to federal elections, and that when the Alaska Division of Elections decided that misspelled write-in votes are valid, that was effectively a revision of state laws and practices, and it was invalid because only legislatures can change laws and practices. Judge Beistline did not disagree with Miller’s statement of that argument, but the judge ruled that the Division of Elections did not change the rules. In effect, the law has always allowed misspelled write-ins. The judge wrote “The Alaska Supreme Court did not make a finding clearly contrary to the face of the statute…what we have before us is a poorly drafted state statute. Wisdom would suggest that the Alaska legislature act to clarify it.”
Miller also argued in federal court that under Bush v Gore, the write-in tally was flawed because there were no clear standards, so not every voter was treated equally. But Judge Beistline said every voter was treated equally, because all the write-ins were examined by one individual, the Director of the Elections office. Finally, Miller argued in this case that he was not treated equally because not all of his votes were examined carefully. But the judge said that the evidence shows that Elections Division workers did actually examine every ballot, not just the write-in ballots. UPDATE: the Alaska Elections Division has now certified Lisa Murkowski as the winner; see this story.
