The August 17 issue of the New Haven Register has this op-ed by Mike DeRosa, criticizing the state’s public funding law for its unequal treatment of candidates, depending on their partisan affiliation or lack of affiliation.
4
On August 17, the New York Libertarian Party submitted over 30,000 signatures for its statewide petition. The requirement is 15,000. August 17 is the deadline. The party also submitted petitions for four U.S. House candidates, the most in its history.
Indiana is the only state in the nation that cancels someone’s voter registration if that person is sentenced to jail for a misdemeanor. On August 16, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court to overturn the law. The case is Snyder v King, 1:10cv-1019. Here is the 10-age complaint. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link to the Indiana Law Blog.
According to this article, the only Pennsylvania statewide candidates on the Tea Party petition, and on the Green Party petition, have withdrawn rather than face the challenge process. As readers well know, candidates who are challenged, and who do not withdraw, and are found not to have valid signatures, are then liable for court costs of tens of thousands of dollars.
The three statewide nominees on the Libertarian Party petition are not withdrawing. There are two federal lawsuits pending that challenge the Pennsylvania practice of charging candidates for court costs when their petitions are checked.
On August 13, the 9th circuit issued this 31-page opinion in Wolfson v Brammer, 09-15298. It says that a judicial candidate in 2008 has standing to challenge Arizona’s ban on certain kinds of speech for judicial candidates, even though the plaintiff-candidate said he would not run again for judge in 2010. The U.S. District Court had dismissed his case, saying he lacks standing.
But the 9th circuit says he does have standing, and told the U.S. District Court to hear the merits of the case. This decision will be useful in ballot access cases. For example, earlier this year, a U.S. District Court in Montana ruled that the plaintiff who is suing to overturn the March petition deadline for independent candidates doesn’t have standing. He has already appealed to the 9th circuit on that issue.