In the last few days, the state governments of California and Kansas have both made their initial responses to lawsuits in federal court that challenge residency requirements for circulators.

In Kansas, the case is Constitution Party of Kansas v Biggs, 10-4043. Kansas has informally told attorneys for the party that they will not contest the part of the lawsuit that says out-of-state circulators may not work in Kansas. The Constitution Party is not on the ballot in Kansas but would like to hire paid petitioners to get itself on.

By contrast, in California, where the Los Angeles County Libertarian Party recently challenged state laws that say circulators for candidate petitions (for district office) may not work outside their home district and/or their home county, the state filed this brief on June 1. It says the plaintiffs don’t have standing, and also that there is no evidence that the state enforces these laws.

California has many election code sections that regulate the residency of circulators: 9209 says city initiatives can only be circulated by residents of that city; 11045 says recall petitions can only be circulated by residents of the district of the office-holder who is being recalled; 8451 says independent candidate petitions can only be circulated by residents of the district; 9021 says initiatives can only be circulated by state residents; 8066 says petitions to get someone on a primary ballot can only be circulated by residents of that district; 8106 says petitions in lieu of filing fee can only be circulated by residents of the district.

California is in the 9th circuit, which ruled in 2008 that Arizona could not bar out-of-state circulators from working on an independent petition.

The South Carolina House has set debate for Thursday, June 3, on H.3746. It makes ballot access worse for independent candidates. Current law does not require petitions to identify who circulated the petition. The bill not only requires the circulator to sign the petition, it requires that all sheets be notarized, which is expensive. Also the bill requires independent candidates to file a declaration of candidacy no later than primary day in June. The bill does not have an exemption for independent presidential candidates, so it would probably be held unconstitutional as to presidential candidates. Finally, the bill says the voters who registered to vote during the period 30 days before the petition is submitted may not sign the petition. That is probably also unconstitutional, because it discriminates against newly-registered voters.

If you live in South Carolina, please phone your state representative and ask him or her not to support H.3746. It has already passed both Houses, but it is back in the House because the Senate amended it. The legislature is expected to adjourn on June 4, Friday.

South Carolina law for independent candidate petitions is already so restrictive that no independent has ever qualified for a government-printed ballot in this state for either House of Congress, or for Governor. Petitions for those offices require 10,000 signatures. Petitions for legislative independents require 5% of the number of registered voters.

On May 28, S8007 was introduced in the New York State Senate. It liberalizes the definition of a qualified political party. The existing definition says a qualified party is a group that polled at least 50,000 votes for Governor. The bill changes this, so that it is a group that polled at least 50,000 votes for any statewide office in a gubernatorial election year. If this bill were law now, the Green Party would be ballot-qualified, because in 2006 it polled 117,908 votes for Comptroller, and 61,849 votes for Attorney General, and 55,469 votes for U.S. Senate. Governor is the only race in which the Green Party didn’t receive 50,000 votes.

On June 1, the bill was transferred from the Election Committee to the Rules Committee. According to an employee of the New York legislature, this is a good sign for the bill, because “Rules is a stronger committee than Elections.” The bill’s author is the Rules Committee itself, so the bill is likely to pass the Rules Committee. Thanks to William D. Stevenson for this news.