Iowa Lawsuit Over Separate Ballot for Judicial Retention Elections Won’t Have Immediate Effect

Posted on by December 20, 2010
3

The attorneys who filed the Iowa lawsuit over judicial retention requirements have withdrawn their request for injunctive relief.  Therefore, the three State Supreme Court Justices who were ousted by the voters last month will leave the court, regardless of the eventual outcome of the lawsuit.  See this story.  It seems the judges were not comfortable with the idea that they might remain on the court via a technicality.

The Iowa Constitution says judicial retention elections must be on separate ballots, a requirement that the state ignored in last month’s election.  The state put the judicial retention elections on the same ballot that was used to elect federal, state and local officials.

Two Bills in Texas Would Make Ballot Access More Restrictive

Posted on by December 20, 2010
6

At least two bills have already been introduced in the Texas legislature to make ballot access more restrictive.

HB 418, introduced on December 10 by Representative Leo Berman, would require the nominees of political parties that nominate by convention to pay the same large filing fee to the government, that candidates running in primaries must pay in order to get on the primary ballot.  This bill is aimed squarely at the Libertarian and Green Parties, both of whom are currently entitled to nominate candidates by convention.

Requiring filing fees for candidates nominated in a convention does not make sense.  The purpose of a filing fee in a primary is to keep the primary ballot uncrowded, but there is no equivalent problem that needs solving in the context of a convention.  The Berman bill says that if the nominees of a convention do not pay the filing fee, they must submit the same number of signatures that an independent candidate would need.  That also does not make sense.  Parties have a freedom of association right, not to have their nominees be subject to a veto by non-members of the party.

HB 318, introduced on November 18 by Representative Roberto Alonzo, moves the primary from early March to early February.  That would have the indirect effect of moving the petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates from May to April.  It would also have the effect of moving the deadline for a new party to tell the state that it intends to submit a petition, from early January of the election year, to December of the year before the election.  And it would move the petition deadline for a new party from late May to late April.

Trial Set for Nebraska Case on Residency Requirement for Circulators, Other Issues

Posted on by December 20, 2010
4

On December 21, a U.S. District Court will hold a trial in Bernbeck v Gale, 4:10-cv-3001.  This is the case that challenges Nebraska’s ban on out-of-state petition circulators, and also challenges the state’s ban on paying circulators on a per-signature basis.  The trial is not expected to last beyond one day.  Most of the facts are not in dispute.  Plaintiffs have already submitted a great deal of evidence showing that these two restrictions substantially increase the cost of getting initiatives on the ballot.  This particular case concerns an initiative in one small city, Stanton.

A somewhat similar case is pending in Nebraska called Citizens in Charge v Gale, but it is not as far along in the process.  That case contains an issue that is not involved in the Bernbeck case.  The Citizens in Charge case challenges the ban on out-of-state circulators, but it also challenges a Nebraska law that sets up a county distribution requirement for statewide non-presidential independent candidates.  The U.S. Supreme Court back in 1969 ruled that statewide petitions cannot have county distribution requirements.  Nebraska already had one such county-distribution requirement declared unconstitutional in 1984.  But the 2007 session of the legislature didn’t seem to remember that, and passed another one.