A lower Connecticut state court will not hear the Republican Party attempt to disqualify the Democratic nominee for Attorney General, George Jepsen, until after the election. See this story. For earlier coverage about this lawsuit, see here.
3
On October 29, the California Secretary of State released new registration data, as of October 18. This was the first data since the September 3 tally.
The percentages for each qualified party, and for the Reform Party as well, are below. The first percentage is the September 3 tally; the second is the new tally:
Democratic: 44.32%, 44.08%
Republican: 30.94%, 31.02%
American Independent: 2.35%, 2.39%
Green: .658%, .659%
Libertarian: .51%, .53%
Peace & Freedom: .333%, .334%
Reform: .139%, .141%
Independents and others, 20.74%, 21.21%
On October 29, U.S. District Court Judge Roger W. Titus, a Bush Jr. appointee, held that Maryland’s deadline for overseas absentee ballots to be received, in order to be counted, is unconstitutional. The deadline is 10 days after the election. The law also requires the absentee overseas voter to have mailed his or her ballot back to the United States no later than election day, and no one has any quarrel with that requirement.
The judge said that the state must count overseas absentee ballots if they arrive by November 22. The evidence showed that a substantial number of overseas military ballots, even though mailed by November 2, would not arrive in Maryland by November 12.
The decision rests partly on the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze, in which early petition deadlines for independent presidential candidates were held unconstitutional. The judge made an analogy between too-early petition deadlines for candidates, and too-early deadlines for voters’ ballots to be received.
Maryland already was sending overseas absentee ballots in mid-September, to conform to a new federal law, but those early ballots only contain federal offices, because the new federal law only covers federal elections. Maryland was not mailing overseas absentee ballots that contain all offices until October. Maryland laws prohibits election officials from postally mailing any absentee ballot (foreign or domestic) if that ballot has state offices on it, until after the September primary has been certified. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.
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.