Hearing Set for North Carolina Ballot Access Case

Posted on by July 16, 2010
3

U.S. District Court Judge Graham C. Mullen will hear oral arguments in Greene v Bartlett on July 28, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. in the federal courthouse in Charlotte, courtroom #3.  The address is 401 W. Trade Street.  This is the lawsuit, filed in 2008, that challenges the number of signatures needed for a U.S. House independent candidate in North Carolina.  The law requires 4% of the number of registered voters.

North Carolina has had government-printed ballots ever since 1901, but no independent candidate for U.S. House has ever appeared on a North Carolina government-printed ballot.  This year, the Service Employees International Union backed a petition to place an independent candidate, Wendell Fant, on the ballot for U.S. House in one district, and did succeed in getting enough valid signatures.  However, the candidate listed on the petition then said he did not want to run.

Anyone who lives near Charlotte, North Carolina, should consider attending this hearing if possible.

New Newspaper Story on Mary Norwood Petition Struggle in Georgia

Posted on by July 16, 2010
Reply

This newspaper story, published July 16, has the latest on Mary Norwood’s struggle to get on the ballot as an independent candidate for Fulton County (Georgia) Chair of the County Commission.

One detail the newspaper omits is that the Fulton County Board of Elections did vote to accept the petition sheets in which the name of the county had been pre-printed on the petition forms.  The vote to accept those petitions was unanimous.

Eleventh Circuit Expedites Florida Public Funding Lawsuit

Posted on by July 16, 2010
Reply

On July 16, the 11th circuit set an expedited briefing schedule in Scott v Roberts, the case over the constitutionality of Florida’s extra public funding for gubernatorial candidates who have a privately-funded opponent with a very large warchest.  All three briefs will have been filed by July 27.  The case number is 10-13211-H.

The U.S. District Court, on July 14, had refused to enjoin the extra public funding.  The case had been filed by a wealthy candidate, running for Governor in the August Republican primary, to block his opponent from receiving extra public funding.  Here is the 4-page order of the U.S. District Court, which expresses the opinion that the case is a close one.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for that document.

North Dakota Libertarian Party Files Lawsuit Over Minimum Vote Test in Party’s Own Primary

Posted on by July 16, 2010
Reply

On July 16, the Libertarian Party of North Dakota filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, alleging that the state law requiring a minimum number of votes in a party’s primary, for that party to nominate candidates, is unconstitutional, at least as to candidates for the legislature.

North Dakota has very small legislative districts.  At this year’s primary, the only parties that had a primary were the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties.  In the typical legislative district, only 2,100 voters cast a vote in any party’s primary.  The vast majority of voters who voted on June 8, 2010, chose to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries.  It appears that about 550 people chose to vote in the Libertarian Party primary.  Any voter was free to vote in any party’s primary; North Dakota doesn’t have voter registration and the state has an open primary.

State law requires statewide nominees to receive at least 300 votes, and all of the Libertarian Party’s statewide candidates met that requirement.  But state law requires legislative candidates to poll between 130 and 145 primary votes, and none of the three Libertarian candidates for the state legislature came anywhere close to doing that.  The case is Libertarian Party of North Dakota v Jaeger, case number not assigned yet.  North Dakota is the only state that has a minimum number of votes in order for a party to nominate candidates in its own primary (except that many states do require a minimum number of votes for write-in candidates in primaries).   Minnesota had a similar requirement, but the Minnesota Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 2004 in a case filed by the Independence Party.

Minnesota Supreme Court Accepts Case Over Validity of Petition Signatures Using Post Office Box Address

Posted on by July 16, 2010
Reply

On July 15, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed to hear Paquin v Mack, A101177.  The issue is the validity of the petition of the Warriors for Justice Party.  The party submitted a petition to qualify two candidates for the legislature.  The candidates needed 500 valid signatures.  They had enough, except that the county clerk disallowed all signatures in which the signers showed a post office box address instead of a residence address.  See this story.

The signatures were collected on an American Indian reservation in Beltrami County.  In a similar case in 2008, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the validity of such signatures, in Jenkins v Hale, 190 P 3d 175.  Like the current Minnesota case, the Arizona case involved an Indian reservation, where many dwellings don’t have formal residence addresses.  Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.