On December 9, the plaintiffs in Field v Bowen filed this reply brief in the California Supreme Court, S188436. This is the case that challenges certain aspects of California’s “top-two” election system. The issue pending in the California Supreme Court only concerns the system’s discriminatory policy on ballot labels. The part of the case concerning write-ins is not presently before the Supreme Court.
On December 9, the plaintiffs in Field v Bowen filed this reply brief in the California Supreme Court, S188436. This is the case that challenges certain aspects of California’s “top-two” election system. The issue pending in the California Supreme Court only concerns the system’s discriminatory policy on ballot labels. The part of the case concerning write-ins is not presently before the Supreme Court.
Tim Storey has this comprehensive summary of the results of state legislative elections, including a map that shows which major party controls each state’s legislature. Unfortunately, the article does not mention that independents or minor party members were elected to state legislatures in ten states this year.
On December 10, a lower state court in Juneau, Alaska ruled that the state was correct to count write-ins for Lisa Murkowski even when the spelling was imperfect. See this story. Joe Miller, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, and who filed the lawsuit, will probably appeal to the State Supreme Court. Here is the 34-page ruling.
UPDATE: also on December 10, the state filed this request with the federal court, asking that the federal stay be lifted.
On December 10, the 9th circuit issued a 3-page memorandum in Kelly v McCulloch, 10-35174. This is the case that challenges Montana ballot access laws for non-presidential statewide independent candidates, especially the March petition deadline, and also the law that requires approximately 10,000 signatures (even though new parties only need 5,000 signatures, and presidential independents also need 5,000 signatures).
The U.S. District Court had dismissed the case on February 3, 2010, saying none of the plaintiffs had standing. But the 9th circuit recent order says voters, as well as candidates, have standing to challenge restrictive ballot access laws. Therefore, the plaintiffs in this case do have standing. The 9th circuit returned the case to the U.S. District Court for a ruling on the merits. UPDATE: on December 14, the mainstream Montana press finally reported on this news. See this story.
