Hearing Date Set in Vermont Lawsuit on June Petition Deadline

A Vermont Superior Court will hear oral argument in Trudell v Markowitz, 612-8-10-WN, on February 3. This is the case that challenges Vermont’s new early petition deadline for independent candidate petitions. Last year the legislature moved the deadline from September to June. At the same time, the legislature moved the primary from September to August.

The plaintiff, Paul Trudell, had tried to be an independent candidate last year for U.S. House of Representatives. He would have appeared on the ballot if the deadline had not been moved. Courts in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, have all ruled that independent candidate petitions (for office other than president) cannot be earlier than primary day, or the day before the primary. There are no contrary precedents, except that in Washington state the 9th circuit refused to strike down a deadline that was a month earlier than the primary, but that decision was based on the fact that no plaintiff-candidate in that lawsuit had been injured by the early deadline.

New Hampshire Bill for Approval Voting

New Hampshire Representative Dan McGuire and several other representatives have introduced HB 240, to let voters cast one vote for as many candidates for any particular office as they wish. This is usually called “Approval Voting.” For instance, if five candidates are running for a particular office and only one is to be elected, and a voter doesn’t particularly care who wins, but that voter is very eager that one particular candidate not be elected, the voter could vote for all four of the other candidates. Thanks to Dale Sheldon-Hess for this news.

South Carolina Bill Eliminates Need for Legal Size Paper for Petitions

Two South Carolina State Senators have introduced S282, which changes the mandatory size of ballot access petitions from 8.5-inch by 14-inch paper, to 8.5 inch by 11 inch paper. This is a worthwhile idea, because candidates and parties have trouble distributing petition blanks via the internet to their supporters at home, because most home printers can’t cope with 14-inch paper very well. The sponsors are Senator Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) and Senator Michael Rose (R-Summerville).

Wyoming Secretary of State Wants to Charge Write-in Candidates for Canvassing their Votes

Under current Wyoming law, a write-in candidate at the general election can request that write-in votes for him or her be tallied. The request need not be made until two days after the general election. The Wyoming Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill this year, S20, provides that the Secretary of State can charge a fee for this service. The bill calls it an “administrative fee” and does not set the amount of the fee. It says the amount will be set by rule and regulation.

Courts in three states have already ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to charge a filing fee for declared write-in candidates. The cases are from the California Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th circuit, and a U.S. District Court in West Virginia. The only permitted rationale for filing fees is to keep ballots from being too crowded. Write-in candidates’ names are never printed on ballot, by definition, so the logic of requiring a filing fee for them doesn’t exist. States are not permitted to charge fees, for either voters or for candidates, merely for the purpose of helping pay for election administration, according to several decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, at page 218, the Court said, “Increases in the cost of administering the election system is not a sufficient basis here for infringing appellees’ First Amendment rights.” In Carrington v Rash, 380 U.S. 89, at 86, the Court said states may not injure voting rights “because of some remote administrative benefit to the state.”

Nevada Secretary of State Asks Legislature to Increase Filing Fees

The Nevada Secretary of State has asked the legislature to pass A81, a bill that has many proposed election law changes. The legislature doesn’t convene until February. The bill increases the filing fees. Currently, the fees for U.S. Senate are $500; for U.S. House and Governor, $300; for other statewide state offices $200; for legislature and partisan county office, $100.

The bill would require these higher fees: for U.S. Senate, $3,000; for U.S. House and Governor, $2,000; for other statewide state offices $1,500; for legislature and partisan county office, $300. The bill also says that candidates who swear they cannot afford these fees are permitted to submit a petition in lieu of filing fees, in which one signature equals one dollar, so that a poor candidate for U.S. Senate, for example, would need 3,000 signatures in lieu of paying the fee.

The bill also moves the petition deadline for a full-fledged new political party to April. If one reads the bill, the new deadline appears to be in May, but another section of the law, not being amended, says the real deadline to submit the petitions to the counties is five weeks before the deadline for putting the signatures in the hands of the Secretary of State. Thus the effective deadline would be in April. This proposal is odd, because in 1986 a U.S. District Court in Libertarian Party of Nevada v Swackhamer, 638 F.Supp. 565, that an April petition deadline for new parties is unconstitutionally early. And back then, new parties nominated by primary. Nowadays they nominate by convention, so there is even less reason for a deadline that early.