The Michigan Tea Party (the ballot-qualified party), which most observers feel is an insincere party artificially created by Democrats, recently nominated 23 candidates.  But two of them will not appear on the ballot because they are under age 21.  The Michigan Constitution requires legislators to be age 21 or older.  See this story.

One of the candidates who is being removed from the ballot was running in the 13th State Senate district.  This is one of the most closely-balanced State Senate districts in Michigan.  Last time voters chose a State Senator in this district, in 2006, the vote for the two major parties had been:  Republican 57,204; Democratic 56,484.  Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

Ohio elects its judges in partisan elections, but there are no party labels on the general election ballot for candidates for judge.  On July 28, some Ohio judges, and others, filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the state must print party labels on general election ballots.  Here is the complaint.  The case is Ohio Council of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v Brunner, 1:10-cv-504, southern district.

Ohio uses partisan primaries to determine who each party nominates for judge, so the partisan affiliation of candidates for judge is obvious at the primary elections.  It is only the general election at which party labels are not present.  Ohio is the only state with a system with that characteristic.  Michigan is somewhat similar.  In Michigan, party conventions nominate candidates for State Supreme Court Justice, and then the voters elect them on a November ballot which also lacks party labels.

The lawsuit also attacks rules that make it impossible for candidates for judge to identify their party identification “after the day of the primary.”

On July 28, two congressional candidates (in the 2012 election)  and four voters filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in San Francisco, arguing that two aspects of the California top-two system are unconstitutional, as applied to them.  The case is Field v Bowen, cgc10-502018.  Here is the complaint.  Here is the brief.

The California Constitution was amended in 2002 to provide that all valid votes must be counted.  Nevertheless, the implementing language for California’s Proposition 14 says that write-in votes in November, for Congress and state office, may never be counted.  Proposition 14 and its implementing law, SB 6, did not repeal the law that says write-in space must be printed on the ballot in November for those offices.  Nor did  Prop. 14 and SB 6 repeal the law that provides that write-in candidates in November may file a declaration of write-in candidacy.

The voter plaintiffs say it is very likely, given the limited number of candidates on the ballot in future general elections in California (only two candidates per office), that they will want to cast a write-in vote in November, and they want their write-ins counted.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court said in Burdick v Takushi in 1992 that states may abolish write-in space on ballots, it has also ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of voters to have their votes counted.

The two candidate-plaintiffs are Rodney Martin, who is a registered member of the Reform Party, and Jeff Mackler, who is a registered member of Socialist Action Party.  They wish to run for Congress in 2012, and they want their party to be printed on the primary ballot next to their names.  But Prop. 14 and SB 6 provide that only candidates who are registered members of qualified parties may have their party “preference” on the ballot.  Martin and Mackler have no choice but to have “no party preference” printed on the ballot next to their names.  Disclosure:  one of the voter plaintiffs is Richard Winger.