On December 16, the 11th circuit heard arguments in Grizzle v Kemp, 10-12176, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2009 Georgia law that says no one may run for a local school board if they have an immediate family member who is a school principal, assistant principal, or on administrative staff, in a school in that district.  The U.S. District Court had declared the law unconstitutional on April 21, 2010.

The two plaintiffs were both denied the ability to run for re-election, in 2009, after the new law took effect.  See this story.

In 1982, in Clements v Fashing, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is no fundamental right to be a candidate for federal office.  However, there was no majority opinion.  Instead, there was one decision signed by four justices, and a contrary opinion also signed by four different justices, and one justice who wrote separately.  This has prevented the Clements case from having much influence.

The issue of qualifications to hold any particular office is distinct from the ballot access issue.  When a law provides that a certain type of person is not eligible to hold the office, the person can’t even claim the office if he or she wins by write-in votes.  By contrast, ballot access concerns whether someone who is eligible to hold the office is able to gain a place on the ballot.

On December 13, five candidates for citywide non-partisan Chicago office filed a federal lawsuit, alleging that the requirement that they each collect 12,500 valid signatures is unconstitutional.  The case is Stone v Neal, 10cv-7727.  Here is the complaint.

The lawsuit points out that candidates for statewide office only need 5,000 signatures, in partisan primaries.  The analogy between a partisan primary and a non-partisan election is not perfect, but it is close.  In Chicago city office elections, if no one gets at least 50% of the vote in the first round, a run-off is held.

In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require minor party and independent candidates for Mayor of Chicago to obtain approximately 42,000 signatures, because minor party and independent candidates for statewide partisan office needed 25,000 signatures.  The Court basically said that it is not rational to require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than for statewide office.  The decision was unanimous.  The U.S. Supreme Court repeated that in 1992 in Norman v Reed.

Chicago switched to non-partisan elections for its citywide city offices in 1999.  Thanks to Christina Tobin for this news.

On December 16, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, a Bush Jr. appointee in Washington, D.C., issued a brief order, upholding the action of the U.S. Justice Department (Voting Rights Section) concerning Kinston, North Carolina.  North Carolina is one of the states covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Voters in Kinston voted to switch from partisan city elections to non-partisan city elections.  But the Voting Rights Section rejected the change, finding that the switch would injure black voters.

The city government accepted that decision, but some voters in Kinston sued.  They not only wanted to alter the decision about the type of city elections Kinston should hold, they also wanted to get a ruling that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.  The judge has not yet issued an opinion explaining his reasoning.  See this earlier blog post about the case.  Chances are, the case is dismissed because the judge believes that private citizens do not have standing to challenge a decision of the Voting Rights Section.  UPDATE:  here is the one-page order.  Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.