On December 18, California attorney Roger William Clark, who wants to run for Attorney General of California in 2010 as a Republican, asked the California Supreme Court to overturn the California law that prevents him from getting on any primary ballot in 2010.

Clark was a registered Democrat until May 1, 2009, when he changed to the Republican Party. He can’t get his name on the Republican primary ballot because the law says no one may qualify for a primary ballot in a partisan race if that person was a member of a different party during the year before filing. The filing deadline for California non-presidential primaries is in mid-March. Clark originally filed his lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in August 2009, but that Court upheld the law on October 28, 2009. That decision is called Clark v Bowen, BC420243. The lower court decision has a few errors; it says Clark wants to run for Secretary of State (which is not correct) and it says the primary is in March 2010 (actually the primary is in June 2010).

Clark depends on the California Constitution. In the past, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the California Constitution gives stronger protection for candidates than the U.S. Constitution does. But in 2002, the California Supreme Court seemed to strip that extra protection away, when it upheld a San Francisco Elections Department policy of not permitting write-in votes in run-off elections. That decision was called Edelstein v City and County of San Francisco, and it overturned a 1985 decision by the California Supreme Court that said the California Constitution protects write-in votes in run-off elections. Edelstein v City and County of San Francisco was a 4-3 decision, and was written by former Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who is no longer on the California Supreme Court. She now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

On December 31, the Oregon State Supreme Court issued an opinion in Vannatta v Oregon Government Ethics Commission, SC 057570. Here is the unanimous 19-page opinion. The opinion says that even though Oregon has a very strong free speech provision in its Constitution, the Constitution is not violated by an Oregon statute that makes it illegal for lobbyists to give public officials gifts of more than $50.

The opinion also says that a parallel law, making it a crime for a lobbyist to offer such a gift to a public official, is unconstitutional, because it violates free speech. The decision acknowledges that the right to offer such a gift is, practically speaking, of little significance, since the public official is legally required to refuse such a gift.

Finally, the decision says that the plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge a third law, which makes it illegal for a public official to ask a lobbyist for a gift. None of the plaintiffs include public officials, and only a public official would have standing to challenge that law. Obviously it is extremely unlikely that any public official would ever file a lawsuit against that third law.

On December 31, an earlier Ohio Secretary of State ruling on ballot-qualified parties for the 2010 election was officially promulgated to county election boards in Ohio. The ruling says that the Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Socialist Parties are ballot-qualified in Ohio in 2010. Some time ago, the Secretary of State had posted this ruling on her web page, and no one made any negative comments, or comments as to why the tentative ruling should be reversed. The comment period is now over. The ruling is now final.

The four minor parties must nominate any 2010 candidates in their own primary. Candidates for statewide office in the primary of any of these parties need 500 signatures. Candidates for district and county office need 25 signatures. Signatures are due in February. The primary is in May.

The Ohio Constitution says all ballot-qualified parties must nominate by primary. Ohio and Oklahoma are the only states that have state constitutional provisions that require all parties to nominate by primary. Most states let small or new qualified parties nominate by convention. Allowing newly qualifying parties to nominate by convention allows for later petition deadlines for new parties, and also saves tax money.

Ohio still doesn’t have any valid election law to determine which parties are ballot-qualified. The 6th circuit invalidated the old laws in 2006 and the legislature has not replaced them. One bill, HB 260, would revise the laws, but it has not passed the State Senate. There is no bill pending that would revise the State Constitutional provision about mandatory primaries for all parties. Thanks to Kevin Knedler for the news about the final status of the Secretary of State’s ruling.