On August 18, a hearing was held in Socialist Party of Michigan v Land, in Ingham County Circuit court.  The judge ruled from the bench that the case should be dismissed because it was filed too late in the election year.  It had been filed on July 21, 2010.  The decision is not reasonable.  It may be that the case was filed too late to place any of the Socialist Party’s candidates on this year’s ballot, but because this is a lawsuit alleging that the Michigan ballot access laws are unconstitutional, the case should have been allowed to proceed.

The case alleges that it is unconstitutional for a state to require more signatures to get a party on the ballot, than votes for an old party to remain ballot-qualified.  Michigan’s petition to get a newly-qualifying party on the ballot is 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, but the vote test is 1% of the winning Secretary of State candidate’s vote total.  This generally means that the number of signatures is twice as high to get a party on, as the number of votes needed for an old party to remain on.  The only other state with numerical tests, in which the number of signatures is significantly higher than the number of votes, is Kansas.

The Socialist Party hasn’t decided whether to appeal, or to just file a new similar case next year.

On August 18, one judge on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that independent candidate Carl Stevenson should not be on the November ballot as a candidate for State Representative, 134th district.  The basis for the decision is that one of the candidate’s circulators doesn’t live in that district.

However, in 2002, a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that the residency requirement for circulators is unconstitutional.  That case is Morrill v Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 882 (eastern district).  Stevenson had asked the state Elections office if he could use an out-of-district circulator.  The Elections office replied in an e-mail that he could, and told Stevenson about the Morrill precedent.  However, the Elections office also asked Stevenson not to submit a copy of that e-mail into evidence if he were challenged.  Stevenson was challenged, and the Commonwealth Court judge said that Morrill v Weaver doesn’t apply to Stevenson, because Stevenson is an independent candidate and the Morrill decision was won by several Green Party candidates.  This is absurd, because there is no legal difference between the Green Party candidate-plaintiffs and any independent candidates.  Pennsylvania treats them alike for purposes of petitioning for the general election ballot.  Also, the constitutional  principles in all the winning lawsuits against residency requirements for circulators involve the free speech rights of circulators.  It is completely immaterial what kind of petition is involved.

Stevenson represented himself pro se in the Commonwealth Court and cannot afford any attorney for any appeal.  He is hoping to find a pro bono attorney.  He needed 577 valid signatures and he has enough valid signatures except for the residency issue.