New York Judge Invalidates 33 Absentee Votes in Troy, New York Working Families Primary

Posted on by October 2, 2009
Reply

On October 2, a New York State Supreme Court in Rensselaer County invalidated 33 absentee votes cast in the Working Families Party primary of September 15, 2009. See this story. The case is Lambertsen v Bugbee, 230629. The Working Families Party primary was a battle between some Republican candidates versus some Democratic candidates, for County Legislature and Troy City Council. There were no WFP members running in that primary. The 33 absentee ballots were found fraudulent, filed in the names of voters who never received the ballots (and in most cases, had not even requested absentee ballots).

It appears that one or two Democratic Party partisans are responsible for the fraud, but no criminal charges have been filed yet against anyone.

California Lawsuit to Remove Public Funding Ballot Measure from 2010 Ballot

Posted on by October 2, 2009
Reply

In 2008, the California legislature passed AB 583, which would institute public funding in California, starting in 2014, only for the Secretary of State race. The law cannot go into effect unless it is approved by the voters, so it will be on the June 2010 ballot.

On August 25, 2009, the Institute of Governmental Advocates filed a lawsuit in state court to remove the measure from the June 2010 ballot. The Institute represents lobbyists. The bill provides that most of the money to pay for public funding would be raised by increasing the fee to register as a lobbyist, from $25 every two years, to $700 every two years. The case is Institute of Governmental Advocates v Bowen, Superior Court, Sacramento, 34-2009. Here is the Complaint. The Institute argues that the measure is a tax increase, so it should have been passed by two-thirds of each house of the legislature to have any effect (the California Constitution doesn’t permit tax increases without a two-thirds vote in the legislature). The Institute also argues that the amount of the tax violates the First Amendment.

Georgia Fails to File Brief in Coffield Ballot Access Case in 11th Circuit

Posted on by October 2, 2009
Reply

Faye Coffield, an independent candidate for U.S. House in Georgia last year, brought a lawsuit in federal court last year, alleging that the requirements are so severe for an independent to get on the ballot for U.S. House, that they are unconstitutional. They have not been used since 1964, and back then no one checked the signatures, they were due in October of the election year, and congressional boundaries followed county lines (except that Fulton County was split into two districts).

The U.S. District Court ruled against Coffield on April 30, 2009, and she appealed. Her 11th circuit brief was submitted on August 17, 2009, and the state’s response was due September 17. However, according to the Clerk’s office at the 11th circuit, the state neither filed a brief, nor asked for more time. So, the case has been submitted to the judges, whose identities are not known.

It is very rare for a state to fail to file a brief in a constitutional ballot access case. In 1988, when Lenora Fulani challenged the start date for an independent petition to begin circulating in California, the state of California accidentally didn’t respond, and the U.S. District Court Judge declared the start date unconstitutional. When the state asked for permission to file a brief late, the Judge accepted a late brief, but she did not reverse her opinion, and so Fulani won the case. The state was forced to move the start date for independent presidential petitions from June to April of the election year. Such petitions were (and still are) due in August.