The Los Angeles Times of February 1 has this editorial, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should decide Doe v Reed in favor of the state of Washington. The issue is whether Washington state should turn over the names and addresses of people who sign referendum petitions to people who want to put those names and addresses on a web page.

The editorial says that unlike voting, signing a petition takes place in public. The weakness in that argument is that signing a petition does not necessarily take place in public. Some petitions are circulated among like-minded groups, at meetings of such groups. Not all petition signatures are gathered in public spaces. Also there is a big difference between having one’s signature and address seen by, at most, 20 people who sign the same sheet below the signature of a voter who wishes privacy, and having one’s signature and address posted to a web page. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Last year, Howard County, Maryland, rejected 87% of the signatures on a referendum petition, because the Howard County Board of Elections believed that a recent decision of the Maryland State Court of Appeals means that petition signatures are invalid if they aren’t exact matches of that voter’s signature on the voter registration form.

Proponents of the referendum filed a lawsuit against this policy in both state and federal court. The federal case lost in U.S. District Court in October 2009. Proponents of the referendum have just filed this brief in the 4th circuit. The brief is 78 pages long. Pages 44-46 explain the practical problems with the Board of Elections’ policy. The vast majority of voters don’t remember exactly how they filled out a voter registration form, which sometimes was an action they had taken decades earlier. And even if they do remember whether they used a middle initial, or used their entire middle name, or whether they put down, “Jr.” or “Sr.” or “III”, or similar additions to the name, the petition form space for printing one’s name is very small. It isn’t easy to fit a full name into the space for printing one’s name. So, to make one’s printed name fit, signers typically use abbreviations, accepted shortened forms of longer names, such as “Wm.” for “William”, or else they use nicknames, such as “Bill” for “William.” So, all those signatures are invalid. Page 47 of the brief has a useful list of court precedents that have ruled that exact name matches are not required.

On January 13, the Executive Director of the South Carolina Democratic Party sent a letter to Brian Doyle, who wants to run in this year’s Democratic primary for U.S. House, 3rd district. The incumbent in that seat is not running for re-election.

The letter says, “Brian: As I am sure you are aware, the Party must follow the Constitution of the State of South Carolina when accepting a candidate’s filing. It is our understanding that you were convicted in 2003 of a felony and that alone disqualifies you from seeking office in South Carolina. The South Carolina Constitution clearly states, “A person convicted of a felony or an offense against the election laws is not qualified to file or to hold office, unless it has been fifteen years since the completion of the sentence for the crime or unless the person has been pardoned. The South Carolina Democratic Party would be forced under the law to reject your candidate filing this year.”

For over 90 years, state and federal courts have consistently ruled states cannot add to the qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution to serve in Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this understanding in 1995, when it ruled in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton that states may not keep candidates for Congress off any ballot, just because the person has already served three terms in Congress.

On January 27, Doyle sued the South Carolina Democratic Party over its threat to keep him off its primary ballot, and also over its failure so far to include him on the party’s web page list of candidates this year. Here is a link to the party’s web page. The case is Doyle v South Carolina Democratic Party, 3:10cv-203, filed in U.S. District Court.

If political parties had the power to add qualifications to run in their own primaries for Congress, then, in theory, the Republican Party (which once endorsed term limits for Congress) could provide by party rules that no long-serving member of Congress would be permitted to run in a Republican primary for re-election.