The Miami Herald has this op-ed by Political Science Professor Daniel A. Smith, recommending that states and the federal government implement programs for public funding of campaigns. Thanks to Political Activity Law for the link.
Reply
On September 7, a Tennessee state court invalidated the petition to recall the Mayor of Chattanooga, Tennessee, because some of the signatures aren’t dated, and also because the judge said the number of signatures required should be controlled by state law, not by the City Charter. See this story. This is a re-write of an earlier blog post that had been written before the decision had come down.
Voters in one Board of Education district in Beaufort County, South Carolina, will find a November ballot with no candidates listed for that office. The only person who submitted a petition thought she had at least 50 valid signatures, but she didn’t. See this story. As a result, the winner will be determined by write-in votes. South Carolina is one of ten states that permits write-in votes in the general election, yet doesn’t have a write-in declaration of write-in candidacy. So, no one needs to file anything to potentially be elected. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.
Indiana and Pennsylvania are two other states in which it is routine for very small jurisdictions (such as townships) to elect people by write-in vote, because candidates often don’t bother to do the work needed to get themselves on the ballot.
The next Australian government will be led by the Labor Party, after the lone Green in the Australian lower house, and also several independents in the lower house, decided to vote with the Labor Party. In the Australian Senate, the Green Party also used its balance-of-power status to keep Labor in charge. See this story. The Labor government will now support carbon legislation that it had not previously been willing to support.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has asked that all briefs in Carl Stevenson’s ballot access lawsuit be submitted by September 8, no later than 1 p.m. This is the case over Pennsylvania’s in-district residency requirement for circulators. Carl Stevenson is an independent candidate for State House, 134th district. He would be on the ballot, except some of his signatures were collected by someone who doesn’t live in his district. The Commonwealth Court had therefore removed him from the ballot, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is hearing his appeal.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court doesn’t normally provide for oral argument in election law cases, so a decision will come shortly after the Supreme Court receives the briefs. The Pennsylvania in-district residency requirement for minor party candidates was held unconstitutional in federal court in 2002 in Morrill v Weaver, 224 F Supp 2d 882 (eastern district). However, the Commonwealth Court said Morrill v Weaver doesn’t apply, because the plaintiffs in that case were Green Party nominees, and Stevenson is an independent candidate. But, there is no difference whatsoever in the petitioning process in Pennsylvania between the nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates. Parties in Pennsylvania are not ballot-qualified for the November ballot unless they have registration membership of 15% of the state total. So there is no difference between minor parties and independent candidates, for the mechanics of getting on the ballot.