Briefs Finally Filed in Tennessee Ballot Access Case

Posted on by January 15, 2010
Reply

On January 15, briefs asking for summary judgment were filed by both sides in Libertarian Party of Tennessee v Thompson, in U.S. District Court in Nashville. The issue is the ballot access law for new and previously unqualified parties, which is so severe, it has not been used since 1968. Plaintiffs include the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties.

The state’s brief says that even though the law says petitions must be signed by members of the party, that that is a meaningless law and it can safely be ignored. Tennessee does not have registration by party. Also, Tennessee has no government petition form for new parties, and groups prepare their own petition. The law says a party includes a group that “has membership equal to at least 2.5% of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent election of governor as shown by petitions to establish a political party filed with the coordinator of elections and signed by registered voters as members of the party.”

Two Activists in Same U.S. House District Have Same Name

Posted on by January 15, 2010
Reply

According to this news story, two individuals with the same name are both active in the campaign for U.S. House in California’s 39th district. They are both named John Smith. One John Smith is a Democrat and the other John Smith is a member of the American Independent Party. UPDATE: thanks to an alert commenter below, who points out that the Democratic Party’s John Smith is politically active in that district, but he is not a candidate.

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Privacy of Petition Signatures

Posted on by January 15, 2010
Reply

On January 15, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it will hear Doe v Reed, 09-559, the case from Washington state on whether the Constitution forbids states from making public the names and addresses of people who sign petitions. The case had been filed by people who circulated a referendum petition against civil unions for same-sex couples. The people who submitted the petition do not want the names and addresses of the signers to be given by the Secretary of State to a group that planned to post the names and addresses on an internet site.

The Court’s conference was on January 15. Normally, the Court won’t reveal what it has decided at conference until the following week. But the Court released the news early on January 15, to make it easier for the attorneys on both sides to begin writing their briefs, because the argument will either be in April 2010, or October 2010. The Court accepted four other cases as well (the other cases are not election-law related).

Doe v Reed will be the first case the U.S. Supreme Court has heard on procedures for ballot access petitions since 2008, when it issued its opinion in New York State Board of Elections v Lopez-Torres. That case upheld New York state’s procedures for candidates for Delegate to Judicial Nominating Conventions to get themselves onto primary ballots. The Lopez-Torres decision didn’t pay much attention to the details of how tough those petition requirements were. Instead, the Court seemed to say that because the Democratic and Republican Parties wanted ballot access for their own primary ballots to be restrictive, that was their decision.

Arizona Green Party Wins Injunctive Relief on Both Issues, Residency of Circulators and More Time to Finish Petition

Posted on by January 15, 2010
Reply

On January 15, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton granted injunctive relief to the Arizona Green Party on two issues. The order permits the party to use out-of-state circulators for its petition to get itself on the ballot. Also, the order extends the deadline from February 25 to March 11. The party had not argued that the February 25, 2010 was per se unconstitutional. But the party had argued that it violates due process to change the deadline from March to February and to try to enforce it so soon after enacting the change. The case is Arizona Green Party v Bennett, 2:09-cv-2412.

It was no surprise that the party won injunctive relief against the ban on out-of-state circulators for petitions to qualify a party. The 9th circuit had struck down Arizona’s residency requirement for petitioners in 2008, in a case involving independent presidential petitions. So the 2009 legislative session had repealed the ban, but only for independent presidential petitions. The 2009 legislative session left the ban in place for all other types of petitions, which was not logical.