On October 19, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ordered the Washington Secretary of State not to release the names and addresses of people who signed the R-71 Referendum petition until after the U.S. Supreme Court has had time to think about the case, which is called Doe v Reed. See this story. UPDATE: here is the state’s 35-page brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On October 19, the 9th circuit held oral arguments in Coronado v Brewer, 08-17567. The main issue is whether the 24th Amendment requires Arizona to let ex-felons register to vote, even if that ex-felon owes restitution or fines. The 24th amendment says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
The three judges on the panel were Alex Kozinski, Sandra Ikuta, and Sandra Day O’Connor, who is of course retired from the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices who retire from the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes participate in panels of U.S. Courts of Appeals in their home states. The hearing was held in Tempe, Arizona, on the campus of the State University. The hearing seemed to go well for the attorneys who are representing the individuals who desire to register to vote. This is an ACLU case.
On October 19, the 9th circuit held oral arguments in Coronado v Brewer, 08-17567. The main issue is whether the 24th Amendment requires Arizona to let ex-felons register to vote, even if that ex-felon owes restitution or fines. The 24th amendment says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
The three judges on the panel were Alex Kozinski, Sandra Ikuta, and Sandra Day O’Connor, who is of course retired from the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices who retire from the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes participate in panels of U.S. Courts of Appeals in their home states. The hearing was held in Tempe, Arizona, on the campus of the State University. The hearing seemed to go well for the attorneys who are representing the individuals who desire to register to vote. This is an ACLU case.
On October 16, the Massachusetts Secretary of State filed notice of appeal in Barr v Galvan, the case over whether the U.S. Constitution requires states to let unqualified parties use stand-in presidential candidates on their ballot access petitions. The Libertarian Party had won this case in the U.S. District Court last month.
The law in Massachusetts is ambiguous about whether such substitution is permitted. Over the years, the Massachusetts Secretary of State has given conflicting rulings on whether it is permitted or not. The state’s position seems to be that substitution is permitted for minor parties that don’t choose their presidential nominees until July or August of the election year, but that it is not permitted for parties that have a national presidential convention in May or in earlier months. The Libertarian Party national convention is usually on the last weekend of May in presidential election years.
On October 19, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Stengel heard oral arguments in The Constitution Party of Pennsylvania, et al, v Cortes, in Philadelphia, case no. 09-1691. The judge did not ask many questions, but he said several times that the case is interesting, and he asked questions about the type of relief that might possibly be granted. The case challenges Pennsylvania’s unique system of requiring candidates and parties to pay the costs of checking their petitions, in case those petitions are held to be inadequate. It also challenges Pennsylvania’s arbitrary standards on which write-ins to tally, and the failure of some counties to count any write-ins. And it challenges the test a party must meet, in order to place nominees on the ballot in regularly-scheduled elections without the need for a petition. That test is that the party must have registration membership of 15% of the state total, which is more than 1,000,000 registered voters.
The other plaintiff political parties besides the Constitution Party are the Green and Libertarian Parties.
