On October 28, Idaho held a debate for all five candidates on the ballot for Governor. See this story. Thanks to Uncovered Politics for the link.
The candidates are Republican nominee Butch Otter, Democrat Keith Allred, Libertarian Ted Dunlap, and independent candidates Jana Kemp and Pro-Life. The independent candidate whose name on the ballot is Pro-Life was formerly named Marvin Richardson, but some years ago he changed his name.
On October 28, two Libertarian nominees filed a lawsuit, arguing that the ballot format discriminates against certain candidates and for certain other candidates. The case is Blevens v Gardner, in Merrimack County Superior Court. See the party’s web page, explaining the lawsuit. The case will continue after the election, and is directed against the characteristic of the ballot that does not rotate the names of candidates listed in the “Independent” column. New Hampshire puts the nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates, into a single column on the ballot, headed by the word “independent.” The lawsuit does not challenge that aspect of the ballot. It does challenge the fact that the names within that column are not rotated.
In 2006, the New Hampshire Supreme Court had ruled that each candidate must have an equal chance to be listed first. In response, the state now rotates each of the three columns, but doesn’t rotate candidates within those columns. This has a far greater impact on candidates who are not Republican or Democratic nominees.
It is possible the complaint will be expanded to cover the point that unqualified parties should have their own party column, just as each qualified party has its own party column. UPDATE: the plaintiffs have withdrawn their request for injunctive relief. The issue of whether the 2010 ballot design is constitutional will be heard in June 2011, after the legislature has been given an opportunity to address the problem.
Politico has this story, that on the last day, over 100 people signed up to be declared write-in candidates for U.S. Senate in Alaska. The intent is to make the list of declared write-in candidates so long that the list supposedly won’t be useful to Lisa Murkowski. However, if the list if alphabetized, it will still be useful.
No one with a surname of “M” and a first name of “Lisa” filed. Here is the list. Thanks to Rick Hasen for that link.
This idea spread on a talk show. It is somewhat similar to an attempt in California in 2003 to encourage people to file for the ballot in the special gubernatorial recall election, by a wealthy individual who was willing to pay the California filing fee. His motivation was to sabotage the recall, and the recall did end up with a ballot with 135 candidates listed.
The October 29 issue of the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader has this op-ed by Howard Dean, advocating Instant Runoff Voting. Dean is former chair of the Democratic National Committee, and has been advocating IRV for many years.
On October 28, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a 6-page opinion in Fasano v Ashjian, 56040, holding the appeal moot. The case had been filed by Tim Fasano, Independent American Party nominee for U.S. Senate, to remove Scott Ashjian from the November ballot as the Tea Party nominee for U.S. Senate. The lower court had kept Ashjian on the ballot, and the Nevada Supreme Court said Fasano’s appeal cannot prevail because he waited too long to file his appeal. Thanks to Glenn Brown for this news.
Fasano had pointed out that Ashjian had signed a declaration of candidacy saying he was registered in the Tea Party, when in fact he did not change his registration from “Republican” to “Tea” for several hours afterwards. The lower court had ruled in favor of Ashjian by finding that a de minimus violation.
This is the second case in which the Nevada Supreme Court had ruled against attempts to get Ashjian off the ballot. The other case, which was potentially very bad for ballot access, had been filed by Citizen Outreach, a conservative group, and had argued that the Secretary of State had erroneously put the Tea Party on the ballot and that new parties need two separate petitions, one signed by 250 voters due early in the year, and then a separate petition signed by over 9,000 voters due in the late spring.
