According to this news story, the Utah Attorney General will decide whether it is legal for initiative petitions to be obtained electronically, instead of only on pieces of paper. Thanks to BallotBoxNews for the link.
Reply
On December 7, Alabama filed its brief in Shugart v Chapman, the case pending in the 11th circuit over whether a state can require an independent candidate for US House to obtain more signatures than an independent candidate for president.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice, in 1979, and again in 1992, that states cannot require more signatures for an office in just part of the state, than for statewide office. Alabama argues that those precedents don’t apply if the statewide office is the office of President.
The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in both 1979 and 1992 that when a state requires more signatures for an office in just part of the state than for a statewide office, that type of disparity is discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court also said in both cases that discriminatory ballot access laws cannot survive unless the state can show that the law is needed for a compelling state interest. But a few months later in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court said that if the law under challenge is not discriminatory, then it can survive if it merely has a rational basis.
Alabama’s brief insists that the rational basis test applies, but the brief does not really address the point that since this case involves a discriminatory ballot access law, the rational basis test does not apply. And, indeed, it seems obvious that if Alabama can get along with 5,000 signatures for an independent candidate for President, there is no compelling state need to require more than 5,000 signatures for an independent candidate for U.S. House.
Steve Rankin’s Free Citizen blog has this news about the intention of the South Carolina Republican Party to file a lawsuit, arguing that the U.S. Constitution protects its desire to obtain a government-provided primary that is only open to Republicans.
Independent Political Report links to this Rasmussen Poll, which asks voters which party they would support for Congress in 2010 if their choices were limited to the Democratic Party nominee, the Republican Party nominee, and the nominee of a party called the “Tea Party.” There is no such political party. One wishes Rasmussen Polls had done a poll that asks voters to choose among parties that actually exist.
The results are: Democratic 36%, Tea Party 23%, Republican 18%, other or undecided 22%.
On December 7, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California, Hastings College of the Law v Newton, 08-1371. This is not an election law case. But it is a freedom of association case, and all legal decisions in that area of the law affect political parties.
The Christian Legal Society is the only student organization ever denied recognition by Hastings College of the Law. Hastings requires recognized student groups to admit any student, regardless of that student’s beliefs. For example, the university guidelines say, “For example, the Hastings Democratic Caucus cannot bar students holding Republican political beliefs from becoming members or seeking leadership positions in the organization.”
The Christian Legal Society does not wish to admit as members any student who “advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.” Because the University will not recognize the group, it is barred from access to meeting space at the school, from participation in the annual Student Organizations Fair, from placing announcements in the law school newsletter and on bulletin boards, from sending fliers through law school mailboxes, and from being mentioned in the list of student organizations.
If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of the Christian Legal Society, the decision might also strengthen the ability of political parties to control their own nominations process.
The U.S. Supreme Court took a long time to decide whether to hear this case or not. It was on the Court’s conference seven times before the Court made its decision. Those conference dates were September 29, October 9, October 19, October 30, November 6, November 13, and December 4.