U.S. District Court in Virginia Won’t Grant Injunction Against Residency Requirement for Circulators

On August 23, U.S. District Court Henry E. Hudson, a Bush Jr. appointee, refused to grant injunctive relief against a Virginia law that requires circulators for candidates to Congress to live in the district.  Lux v Rodrigues, 3:10-cv-00482, eastern district.

The judge seemed sympathetic, but said he is bound by a 1985 decision of the 4th circuit, Libertarian Party of Virginia v State Board of Elections.  That case was really about the requirement that statewide petitions needed signatures in each U.S. House district, a requirement that no longer exists.  But in the course of upholding the requirement that signatures needed to come from each U.S. House district in the state for a statewide petition, the panel also seemed to approve of the law that does not permit circulators to work outside their home congressional district.

That 1985 case, and the 2010 case, relied on “rational basis” scrutiny.  But in 1999 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws requiring circulators to be registered voters, and used strict scrutiny, so there is an easy argument to be made to the 4th circuit in the Lux case that the U.S. District Court decision should be reversed.  Lux is expected to appeal quickly.  He is an independent candidate for U.S. House in the 7th district, and whether he gets on the ballot depends on his appeal.

California Secretary of State Asks for Technical Revisions to Top-Two System, but Legislature Will Not Act in 2010

August 20 was the practical deadline in the California legislature for an old bill (that had already made headway in the legislature) to be amended and given entirely new content.  The only way to introduce an entirely new idea this late in the legislative session is for a legislator to take an old bill that has already passed one house, and amend it.

In early August, the California Secretary of State had asked the legislature to make some technical changes to SB 6, the 2009 law that implements the “top-two” system that takes effect in January 2011.  However, no legislator acted on the Secretary of State’s request.  The Secretary of State had identified several problems with SB 6, from an election administration viewpoint.

California Lawsuit on Residency Requirements for Circulators Moves Ahead

A U.S. District Court in Los Angeles has set a scheduling conference for November 29, in Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, 2:10-cv-2488.  This is the case that challenges a California election law that says petitions-in-lieu of filing fee can’t be circulated unless the circulator lives in the district, and also lives in the same county.

Arizona Green Party Primary Invaded by Insincere Outsiders

This year, the ballot-qualified Arizona Green Party, which is required under state law to nominate by primary, has in influx of candidates who are apparently not bona fide Greens, and who have refused to meet with Green Party activists and leaders.  There is evidence that political consultants who are associated with Republicans recruited these candidates.  See this blog post.

In 1951, the National Municipal League, which is now called the National Civic League, published a booklet, “A Model Direct Primary System.”  It was written by Dr. Joseph P. Harris, at that time the nation’s leading authority on election administration.  His book says that states should let qualified small parties nominate by convention, not primary.  The book says primaries for small qualified parties is a waste of taxpayer money.  Furthermore, as this 2010 incident shows, small qualified parties themselves are better off if state law permits them to nominate by convention.  If Arizona let the Green Party nominate by convention, the party wouldn’t be having this problem.

Tea Party Blocked from Michigan Ballot

On August 23, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers blocked the Tea Party from appearing on the November 2010 ballot.  The vote was 2-2.  A tie keeps a party off the ballot.  Apparently some of the party’s documents refer to it as “The Tea Party” whereas other documents just call it “Tea Party.”  Also, this story discusses some problems with the affidavits of candidacy.  The party will now go to court.  Thanks to Jason Miller for this news.