Two Members of California Citizens Redistricting Commission Have Past Ties to Minor Parties

Posted on by December 22, 2010
4

California’s new Citizens Redistricting Commission is about to start work, now that the Census Bureau has released final 2010 population figures.  The Commission has only 14 members.  By law, five must be registered Democrats, five must be registered Republicans, and four must be registered “other”.  Although all four of the “other” commissioners are now registered independents, two of those four have past associations with a minor party.  See this interesting article from Poli-Tea.

The Commission will draw the new boundaries for California’s U.S. House districts, and its state legislative districts.

Michigan Supreme Court Mulls Whether to Take Socialist Party Ballot Access Case

Posted on by December 22, 2010
2

The Michigan Supreme Court held a conference on December 21.  Among other cases, the Court considered whether to take the Socialist Party’s ballot access case.  The Court has not yet said whether it will hear the case.  It challenges the aspect of Michigan election law that requires newly-qualifying parties to show twice as much support as previously qualified parties.  The number of signatures to get a party on the ballot is approximately twice as high as the vote test for an old party to remain on.  The case is Socialist Party of Michigan v Land, 142163.

Nebraska Judge Promises Quick Ruling in Lawsuit on Circulator Residency Restriction

Posted on by December 22, 2010
Reply

On December 21, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon heard arguments in Bernbeck v Gale, 4:10-cv-3001.  The issues are various restrictions on who can circulate a petition, and how circulators may be paid.  See this story.  The judge promised to rule quickly.  Nebraska is in the 8th circuit, and the 8th circuit is the only circuit in which residency restrictions have been upheld, in the years since the U.S. Supreme Court first said petitioning is First Amendment activity.  The U.S. Supreme Court first said that in 1988, when it unanimously struck down a law banning paying circulators.

Court Explains why Kinston Voters Don't Have Standing to Challenge Nullification of Initiative Making City Elections Non-Partisan

Posted on by December 21, 2010
Reply

On December 20, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., issued an opinion explaining the basis for its order last week in LaRoque v Holder.  This is the case brought by some voters in Kinston, North Carolina, who supported a winning city ballot measure in 2008 that converted city elections from partisan elections to non-partisan elections.  The U.S. Justice Department had then objected to switching to non-partisan elections.  The voters then sued the Attorney General.  Last week the court ruled against the voters, and for the U.S. Justice Department, but did not issue an explanation.  Now, the court has released its explanation.

The court says the plaintiff voters don’t have standing because they are not truly injured by the Justice Department’s action.  The decision implies that if the city of Kinston had filed the lawsuit, then the lawsuit could have proceeded.  Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link.

Court Explains why Kinston Voters Don’t Have Standing to Challenge Nullification of Initiative Making City Elections Non-Partisan

Posted on by December 21, 2010
2

On December 20, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., issued an opinion explaining the basis for its order last week in LaRoque v Holder.  This is the case brought by some voters in Kinston, North Carolina, who supported a winning city ballot measure in 2008 that converted city elections from partisan elections to non-partisan elections.  The U.S. Justice Department had then objected to switching to non-partisan elections.  The voters then sued the Attorney General.  Last week the court ruled against the voters, and for the U.S. Justice Department, but did not issue an explanation.  Now, the court has released its explanation.

The court says the plaintiff voters don’t have standing because they are not truly injured by the Justice Department’s action.  The decision implies that if the city of Kinston had filed the lawsuit, then the lawsuit could have proceeded.  Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link.