Pennsylvania Green Party Statewide Petition Challenged

Posted on by August 9, 2010
7

On August 9, someone challenged the statewide Green Party petition in Pennsylvania.  The challenge was made only 90 minutes before the 5 p.m. deadline to file challenges.  So far no one has challenged the statewide petitions of the Libertarian Party, or of the Tea Party.

The Green Party statewide petition only has a nominee for U.S. Senate.  Pennsylvania Greens did not enter the race for Governor/Lieutenant Governor this year.

The challenge to the Green Party petition, although unfortunate, will make it extremely likely that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit Constitution Party v Cortes will be able to overturn the April 15 decision of a U.S. District Court that said the plaintiff political parties  (including the Pennsylvania Green Party) don’t have standing to sue over the Pennsylvania challenge system.  Also, if the 2010 challenge against the Green Party succeeds, and the Greens then launch a write-in candidate for their Senate nominee, Mel Packer, then the Green Party will also have standing in the part of the case that complains about the state’s failure to tally write-ins for most write-in candidates, and the failure of certain counties to count write-in votes.

U.S. Senator Roland Burris Challenges U.S. District Court Decision on Who Should be on Ballot in Special U.S. Senate Election

Posted on by August 9, 2010
2

On August 2, U.S. District Court Judge John T. Grady ruled that the special U.S. Senate election ballot in Illinois should contain the names of the various candidates who had already qualified for the regularly-scheduled U.S. Senate election.  His 5-page ruling is here.  It says, “The candidates placed on the special election ballot must be limited to a manageable number and should be chosen, not arbitrarily, but for having demonstrated a measure of popular support for the office of U.S. Senator.”

On Friday, incumbent U.S. Senator Roland Burris filed a notice of appeal in that case, Judge v Quinn, 09-2219, in the 7th circuit.  Burris isn’t running for the regular term but he would like to run in the special election.  Logic seems to be on his side.  It does not follow necessarily that any court should decide on its own who is entitled to run in one particular election, based on who is already running in another election.  The special election for the term November 2010-January 2011 is not the same event as the regular election for the January 2011-January 2017 term.  As of August 9, the 7th circuit has not set a briefing schedule for Burris’s appeal.

The U.S. District Court decision of August 2 implies that the 7th circuit already decided this issue in a 1970 case, but the 1970 court decision did not deal with that question.  A member of the U.S. House from Illinois had died on August 13, 1969.  The Governor decided to leave the seat empty until after the 1970 election.  Some voters sued on December 16, 1969, demanding a special election, but the U.S. District Court ruled against them.  The voters appealed, and won in the 7th circuit on May 6, 1970.  The Illinois primary had already been held by then, on March 17, 1970.  The 7th circuit didn’t tell the state in 1970 how to let parties nominate candidates for the special election.  In practice, in 1970, the state then let the major parties decide by party meeting whom to nominate.  There is no court precedent from 1970, or in any court at any other instance, as far as is known, that lets a judge decide whom the party nominees should be, without any official input from the political parties.  Thanks to Jeff Trigg to the link to the decision.

Connecticut Senate Overrides Veto of Public Funding Bill; House Vote Set for Friday, August 13

Posted on by August 9, 2010
4

As noted earlier, on August 2, Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell vetoed SB 551.  The Senate overrode her veto on August 5, by a vote of 24-10.  The House will vote on whether to override her veto on Friday, August 13.

The bill adds a severance clause to the state’s public funding law.  The current law says that if any part is unconstitutional, the entire law is void.  If the legislature can add a severance clause, the program survives.  Last month the 2nd circuit ruled parts of it unconstitutional, although it upheld the parts that discriminate against independent candidates and the nominees of new political parties.

The bill also doubles the amount of public funding for gubernatorial candidates who qualify for full public funding, from $3,000,000, to $6,000,000.  The Governor vetoed the bill primarily because of that provision.  Her veto message said the state can’t afford that money.

Lawsuit Filed Against Extra Public Funding Provision of Maine Public Funding Law

Posted on by August 9, 2010
Reply

On August 5, a federal lawsuit was filed against the part of the Maine public funding program that provides extra public funding for publicly-funded candidates who have very well-financed privately-funded opponents.  Similar lawsuits are pending in Arizona, Connecticut, and Florida.  The 2nd and 11th circuits have tentatively ruled against extra public funding.  The 9th circuit upheld them (in an Arizona case), but then the U.S. Supreme Court took an interest in the 9th circuit case and temporarily barred such funds while the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the Arizona case.

The new Maine case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby, a Bush Sr. appointee who upheld the Maine public funding law many years ago.

Eleventh Circuit Denies Rehearing in Coffield Georgia Ballot Access Case

Posted on by August 9, 2010
1

On August 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th circuit denied a rehearing en banc in Coffield v Handel, 09-13277.  The case challenged the procedures for independent and minor party candidates to get on the ballot for U.S. House.  They are so severe, they have not been used since 1964.  Three times, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that ballot access laws that are seldom used are probably unconstitutional.  The original 11th circuit opinion, released on March 22, 2010, had acknowledged this, but said there is no data in the Coffield case as to how many petitions were attempted and failed.

The petition for rehearing had pointed out that there is no way to know this information, and further that the U.S. Supreme Court had not said that data is relevant.  But, that argument apparently did not sway the 11th circuit.  There had been hopes that the failure of all the independent and minor party petitions in Georgia this year, above the level of state house, might have influenced the 11th circuit to grant a rehearing.  Coffield hopes to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.