Colorado Independent Candidate Will Sue to Overturn Ballot Access Law

Joelle Riddle, a La Plata County, Colorado, Commissioner, will file a lawsuit in a few days to overturn the Colorado law that says no one may be an independent candidate (for office other than President and Vice-President), if that person was a registered member of a qualified party at any time within the entire year before filing. She switched her registration from “Democrat” to “independent” in August 2009, intending to run for re-election in 2010 as an independent. But Colorado law won’t let anyone be an independent candidate if they had been a member of a qualified party later than June 2009. See this story.

On the surface, it might appear that her lawsuit has little chance of success. In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an almost identical California law, in a case called Storer v Brown. The vote was 6-3. However, there are some differences between California law back then and current Colorado law. Back in 1974, California had equally restrictive rules for candidates seeking to place themselves on partisan primary ballots. No one could get on a partisan primary ballot who had been registered in another party for an entire year before filing. California still has this restriction on getting on a primary ballot.

But, Colorado’s law on prior registration restrictions for candidates in a partisan primary were declared unconstitutional in state court in 1988. As things stand now in Colorado, any qualified party, major or minor, is free to write its own rules on prior affiliations. A party in Colorado is free to have a bylaw saying it doesn’t care about a candidate’s past registration. The basis for the 1988 Colorado court victory for parties was that in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court had said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that states have no authority to tell parties they can’t nominate a non-member, if they want to.

Ironically, this means that Riddle is still free to create a new ballot-qualified party, and then have that party pass a bylaw saying anyone can be nominated by that party, regardless of how that candidate was registered in the past. In theory, she could create the “Joelle Riddle Party” if she could get 10,000 signatures on a petition to establish that party, and then it could nominate her and she could appear on the 2010 November ballot that way. The very fact that Colorado lets new parties nominate whomever they wish makes it possible for her to argue that Colorado doesn’t really have a strong interest in barring independent candidates because of the way they were registered in the past. The Colorado legislature waited until 2007 to amend the election law give qualified minor parties the freedom to write their own rules about whom they can nominate; the bill was SB 83. The Libertarian Party of Colorado successfully lobbied for it. Until it passed in 2007, only the two major parties had that freedom. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.

Independent Candidate Outpolls Republican Nominee in Special Rhode Island Legislative Election

On November 10, Rhode Island held a special election to fill the vacant State House seat, 10th district. The vote was: Democrat Scott Slater 661 votes, independent Wilbur Jennings 232 votes, Republican Maurice Green 116 votes. See this story.

One independent candidate also did well in the Mayoral election in Tulsa, Oklahoma, also on November 10. The vote was: Republican Dewey Bartlett 29,948 votes; Democrat Tom Adelson 24,211 votes; independent Mark Perkins 11,913 votes; another independent, Lawrence Kirkpatrick 560 votes. Tulsa is the only city in Oklahoma with partisan city elections.

Ohio Ballot Access Bill Advances

On November 10, the Ohio House Elections Committee passed HB 260 by a vote of 7-6. All Democrats voted for it and all Republicans voted against it. It will receive a vote in the House next week. The bill is hundreds of pages long. It includes provisions making it easier for previously unqualified parties to get on the ballot, and also makes it much easier for parties to remain ballot-qualified. The news media generally don’t even mention those parts of the bill. See this story.

Illinois Green Party Primary Apparently Raided by Democratic Party Activist

Last month, the Green Party of Cook County, Illinois, recruited a well-known candidate to run for the party’s nomination for Cook County Board President, a partisan office elected by all the voters of Cook County. He is Tom Tresser, one of the founders of “No Games Chicago”, the leading organization in Chicago to oppose the idea that the 2016 Olympics should be held in that city. Another Green who had planned to run for that office dropped out voluntarily and endorsed Tresser.

When filing closed on November 2, Greens were surprised to see that a person previously unknown to them had also filed petitions to run in the Green Party primary for that office. He is Sean Burke, whose name was listed on the Cook County Young Democrats web site as the administrative contact for that page. Two Green Party leaders attempted to telephone Burke to learn more about him, but he did not return calls, and the Young Democrats web page has now been emptied of its content. So, Greens have challenged Burke’s petition. See this NBC News story. Tresser’s web page is here.

Massachusetts Presidential Stand-in Case Moves Ahead in First Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, has set a briefing schedule in Barr v Galvin, 09-2426. The brief of Massachusetts state officials is due December 21, 2009. The Libertarian Party’s brief is due January 20, 2010. The issue is whether the Constitution requires Massachusetts to permit unqualified parties to use a stand-in presidential candidate on its ballot access petitions. The lower court had ruled in favor of the Libertarian Party. This is the first time any case on stand-ins on petitions has reached any U.S. Court of Appeals. In the past, states that lost on this issue in federal court (two cases in Florida and one in Virginia) didn’t appeal.

Constitutional election law cases involving minor parties or independent candidates are now pending in six of the twelve U.S. Courts of Appeals. Besides the Massachusetts case pending in the First Circuit mentioned above, they are:

2nd Circuit: the Connecticut case over public funding laws that make it easier for Democratic and Republican candidates to receive funding.

4th Circuit: the South Carolina case that prevents a party from having its nominee on the November ballot if, after the party nominated someone, that person tried and failed to get the nomination of a second party.

5th Circuit: cases in Louisiana and Mississippi over the administration of deadlines for getting presidential candidates on the ballot, and whether only state legislatures can determine such deadlines.

9th Circuit: the Hawaii case over whether a state can require more than six times as many signatures for a single independent candidate as for an entire new party.

11th Circuit: cases in Alabama and Georgia over the number of signatures needed for independent candidates for the U.S. House.