On August 18, one judge on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that independent candidate Carl Stevenson should not be on the November ballot as a candidate for State Representative, 134th district.  The basis for the decision is that one of the candidate’s circulators doesn’t live in that district.

However, in 2002, a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that the residency requirement for circulators is unconstitutional.  That case is Morrill v Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 882 (eastern district).  Stevenson had asked the state Elections office if he could use an out-of-district circulator.  The Elections office replied in an e-mail that he could, and told Stevenson about the Morrill precedent.  However, the Elections office also asked Stevenson not to submit a copy of that e-mail into evidence if he were challenged.  Stevenson was challenged, and the Commonwealth Court judge said that Morrill v Weaver doesn’t apply to Stevenson, because Stevenson is an independent candidate and the Morrill decision was won by several Green Party candidates.  This is absurd, because there is no legal difference between the Green Party candidate-plaintiffs and any independent candidates.  Pennsylvania treats them alike for purposes of petitioning for the general election ballot.  Also, the constitutional  principles in all the winning lawsuits against residency requirements for circulators involve the free speech rights of circulators.  It is completely immaterial what kind of petition is involved.

Stevenson represented himself pro se in the Commonwealth Court and cannot afford any attorney for any appeal.  He is hoping to find a pro bono attorney.  He needed 577 valid signatures and he has enough valid signatures except for the residency issue.

Texas held its 2010 primary on March 2, and the Democratic Party did not have any candidates for Judge in the 432nd district in Fort Worth.  The Republican primary nominated Tom Zachry for that post.  However, Zachry died on March 19, 2010.

Texas election laws let the Republican Party replace Zachry with a new nominee, but the law does not let any other qualified party make a late nomination in circumstances like that.  On August 17, the Texas Democratic Party filed a lawsuit with the Texas Supreme Court, asking the Court to construe Texas election law to let it make a nomination as well.  In re Candace Taylor, 10-0635.

In 1916, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against the Democratic Party is a case somewhat like this one.  That case was Gilmore v Waples, 188 S.W. 1037.

It is inevitable that some primary winners will die after the primary, but before the general election.  However, this problem is made worse when states have primaries that are as early as March, a full eight months before the general election.  The problem is even worse in Texas, which requires all candidates (except presidential candidates) to file a declaration of candidacy in early January of any election year.

On August 17, Washington state held its top-two primary.  No minor party members qualified for the November ballot for any federal or state office, except in races in which only one major party member was running.  However, in one U.S. House race, an independent candidate did qualify for the November ballot, even though there was more than one major party member running.  That was in the 7th district, centered in Seattle.  Democratic incumbent Jim McDermott polled 78.8%.  Bob Jeffers-Schroder, whose label was “Independent-No Party” placed second with 6.9% and will be on the ballot in November.  No Republican ran in that race; the primary ballot had four Democrats and two independents.

The term “minor party” in the paragraph above means an actual organization, i.e., a group with officers, bylaws, and meetings.  It doesn’t refer to candidates who chose a “party preference” that is not a real-world organization.  Examples of such labels are:  GOP, Lower Taxes, Independent Democrat.

Here is a link to the unofficial election returns on the Secretary of State’s web page.