West Virginia Bills to Require Write-in Candidates to Pay Filing Fee

Posted on by January 29, 2010
20

Two bills have been introduced in the West Virginia legislature to require declared write-in candidates to pay filing fees. West Virginia filing fees are 1% of the annual salary of the office sought. However, the presidential filing fee is capped at $2,500. The bills are SB334 and HB 2657. Thanks to Jeff Becker for this news.

In 2000, a U.S. District Court ruled that West Virginia’s old filing fee for declared write-in candidates is unconstitutional. The case is Phillips v Hechler, 120 F.Supp.2d 587. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 and 1974 said that filing fees are unconstitutional unless they are needed for the compelling government interest in keeping ballots uncrowded. The names of write-in candidates are not printed on the ballot, so the existence of write-in candidates does not result in a crowded ballot. Therefore, filing fees on write-in candidates cannot stand. Other states in which filing fees have been declared unconstitutional for write-in candidates are Maryland and California.

South Carolina Senate Passes Bill to Impose Primary Screen-out, but Bill Also Lowers the Number of Signatures

Posted on by January 29, 2010
Reply

On January 28, the South Carolina Senate passed SB 590, after amending it in committee. The bill makes ballot access changes for independent candidates. Some of the changes are beneficial and some are restrictive.

The bill lowers the number of signatures for a statewide independent, and for a U.S. House independent, from 10,000 signatures to 4,000. For state legislature and county office, the petition would be lowered from 5% of the registered voters to 3%.

On the other hand, the bill imposes a primary screen-out. If anyone signs the petition and then votes in a primary that same year, the signature is void.

Also, the bill says that signatures may not be collected more than six months before the petition deadline. The petition deadline remains July 15. Also, the bill says that no one may sign for more than one independent candidate. And, the bill says independent candidates must file a declaration of candidacy no later than primary day. Finally, the bill says that no one may sign an independent candidate’s petition unless he or she had been registered for at least 30 days.

Parts of the bill would be held unconstitutional. In 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed a 3-judge U.S. District Court opinion that said that it is unconstitutional to restrict newly-registered voters from signing a petition. Also, the part of the bill that requires an independent candidate to file a declaration of candidacy by the primary date would not be constitutional as applied to independent presidential candidates. South Carolina presidential primaries are very early, and in 2008 were in January. Anderson v Celebrezze, a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision, said state laws requiring independent presidential candidates to declare earlier than the summer of a presidential election year are unconstitutional.

The bill now goes to the South Carolina House.

9th Circuit Issues a Stay of its Own Ruling in Felon Voting Case

Posted on by January 29, 2010
Reply

On January 28, the 9th circuit stayed its own opinion in Farrakhan v Gregoire, 06-35669. That is the lawsuit over whether the federal Voting Rights Act may be used to strike down state laws that prevent ex-felons and felons from voting. The 9th circuit had ruled that the Voting Rights Act does apply, and that because the evidence shows that the Washington state criminal justice system is racially discriminatory, therefore Washington may not ban felons and any type of ex-felons from voting.

The stay means that the 9th circuit opinion will not be implemented, until or unless the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case and settles it.