The February 18 issue of The Hill has this short interview with Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, who is leaving the Senate after his term expires at the end of this year. Bayh seems to think there could be a strong independent presidential candidate in 2012.
On February 17, a U.S. District Magistrate issued a 30-page opinion, upholding New Hampshire’s policy of not allowing stand-ins on presidential petitions, and also upholding New Hampshire’s policy of not having any procedure by which an unqualified party may protect its name from use by independent candidates who choose the party label as a ballot label, regardless of whether the party has nominated that person.
In 2008, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party was not a qualified party. It submitted a petition for Bob Barr for President, and he appeared on the ballot with the “Libertarian” label. Supporters of George Phillies also submitted a petition for President, and he also appeared on the ballot with the “Libertarian” label. The party filed a lawsuit to gain the right to use stand-in presidential candidates, and also to argue that the ballot label “Libertarian” should be reserved for candidates nominated by the state party, but Magistrate James Muirhead ruled against the party on both issues.
The Magistrate appears not to have read the party’s reply brief of November 6, 2009. The party’s reply brief says on page one, “The post-election declaratory relief that plaintiffs now seek need not include a determination that Phillies should have been removed from the ballot entirely, as defendant suggests. After all, Phillies met the New Hampshire requirements for being listed on the ballot as an independent candidate for president.”
Notwithstanding that, the Magistrate Judge says in his opinion that the Libertarian Party wanted the Secretary of State to remove George Phillies from November 2008 ballot. The decision does not name any of the many precedents that say unqualified parties do have certain rights in election law, including a decision from New Hampshire courts that unqualified parties have a constitutional right to a list of the registered voters. The decision does not mention the four precedents that say unqualified parties have a constitutional right to substitute new nominees for old ones. The decision does not mention the five precedents that voters have a right to register into unqualified parties, or the many decisions that unqualified parties have a right to the list of registered voters, on the same basis as the qualified parties. The Magistrate simply assumes that if a party is not a qualified party, then it enjoys none of the rights that qualified parties enjoy. The Libertarian Party will exercise its right to have the U.S. District Court Judge review the Magistrate’s decision. UPDATE: the party will instead appeal to the First Circuit. It turns out that rules in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire do not permit the party to ask a U.S. District Court Judge for relief.
On February 17, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott struck down an Ohio law that makes it illegal for a former state legislator to lobby the legislature within 12 months of leaving the legislature. The law even makes it illegal for state legislators to lobby as volunteers. The decision said the ban violates the First Amendment. Brinkman v Budish, U.S. District Court, Southern Dist., 1:09-cv-326. The 16-page decision suggests that the law would be constitutional if it only related to paid lobbying.
As noted earlier, on January 5, 2010, the 9th circuit ruled in Farrakhan v Gregoire that the Voting Rights Act does apply to state laws that ban felons and ex-felons from registering to vote. The 9th circuit stayed its own ruling on January 12, 2010. The state of Washington, which lost the case, did not file a petition for rehearing en banc by the deadline. Presumably this is because the state is intending to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take its appeal.
In an unusual move, on February 12, the 9th circuit asked the two sides if they wish the 9th circuit to rehear the case. The responses are due on March 5.
On February 23, at 1 p.m., a U.S. District Court in New Mexico will hear arguments in Woodruff v Herrera. This hearing concerns the part of the case that argues that the Green Party should be recognized, because it polled a number of votes in 2008 that is greater than 5% of the total vote cast in the state, and because it has registration of more than one-third of 1% of the state total.
The state says the party is not ballot-qualified (even though it meets the requirements to be a major party), because it is not a party. It is not a party because it didn’t poll one-half of 1% for President in 2008, and it didn’t run a candidate for Governor in 2006.
Technically, there are two lawsuits, Woodruff v Herrera, 09-cv-449, and Woodruff and Green Party v Herrera, 10-cv-123. They have been combined for purposes of this hearing.
